> This means that Russia can't sell at full price because even those not enforcing the cap aren't willing to pay full price for it (why should they, when Russia's choices of customers are severely limited?)
Yeah, as if energy sources are fashion material and are being bought out of pure fun and leisure. Because countries can just allow themselves not to rely on energy.
> Curious, do you think Russia is to blame at all for violating the terms of the Budapest Memorandum?
The Budapest Memorandum was predicated on adherence to all prior agreements Ukraine would never see sovereignty without in the first place [1]. Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990: >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990) <<
> Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990
The Declaration of State Soveriegnty of Ukraine isn’t an agreement signed by Ukraine, it was domestic legislation of the Ukraine SSR regarding its future plans at the time, more than a year before the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine was passed.
Yeah, I've already heard that you don't believe in succesion of power in Ukraine and that it enables everyone in the government to act at a whim of the moment as long as it serves the current agenda. Turns out that strategy doesn't work in real life.
What I believe in is facts, and there is, in fact, a huge difference between an international agreement and an internal legislation setting general policy goals. You can’t cite a requirement to hold to past agreements and then cite as an example something that is not any kind of agreement.
Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join? Next, what was sovereignty of Ukraine predicated on in 1990?
> Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join?
Putin had been successful in getting NATO to reject MAPs for Ukraine and Georgia before invading either (just before, in Georgia’s case), and that rejection had caused Ukraine to abandon NATO membership as a goal before Putin launched the war in 2014.
Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason. Putin’s war is literally the reason Ukraine has an intent to join NATO, not a response to that intent.
> Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason.
Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].
> let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003
That's not a fact. The Yanukovych government obviously didn't pursue NATO membership, and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal prior to the invasion that occurred shortly after that government came to power, reversing course only after the invasion.
> when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq
2003 was before 2008, when Putin succeeded in getting NATO to reject the Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, and it was this caving to Putin by NATO which is why even when a pro-Western government came to power in 2014 after Yanukovych, it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
> 2003 was before 2008 [...] it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
You're hilarious, on the one hand you don't like it when there's evidence of the subsequent alignment with the goal of joining NATO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36034020), on the other hand you don't like the evidence of the prior alignment either. I'm not sure what you argumnt is unless it's "we decide at the spur of the moment and no one can hold us accountable for anything neither in the past nor in the future".
> > That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.
> You’re wrong: [wikipedia link to 2006 anti-NATO protests]
You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right? So, your link has no value at all in discussing the post-Maidan government’s actions based in large part on the 2008 MAP denial.
> I'm not sure what you argumnt is
My argument is that Putin acheived his goal of stopping NATO expansion to Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008, by getting NATO to deny Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans, that this denial led to even the next Western-oriented government after the one that was in power at the time of the 2008 attempt fell, was replaced with a pro-Russian one (which, arguably, then executed an autocoup, and, undisputedly, was itself replaced in the Maidan Revolution) being quite clear about not seeking NATO membership until AFTER Russia, who had invaded Georgia in 2008, invaded Ukraine in 2014.
This demonstrates a couple things: first, neither the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 nor the Russo-Ukrainian War was based on the threat of those countries joining NATO, which Russia had successfully averted, leaving aside any questions of whether that threat was a legitimate casus belli in any case, and, second, in the case of Ukraine, its actually the cause of the intent to join NATO, which the government, having previously disclaimed it, adopted as a priority after the invasion.
> You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right?
Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?
You do realize that there was a revolution in 2014 against a Russian-friendly leadership in Ukraine, and also that Russia launched the war shortly after that revolution? So, yes, claimimg the invasion was in response to things pre-2014 is implausible because of the revolution, and claiming it was in response to things after 2014 is implausible because of the arrow of time.
The question is lacking historical context of the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990 to be worthy of specificity you’re willing to hear. Welcome to the real world of messy politics that cost human lives, unless guided by level-headed leaders (that the modern Ukraine has been lacking since early 2000s)
> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed?
Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.
So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?
> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour
I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.
I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that.
So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…
The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.
Nope it’s ad hominem and a propaganda technique used when your argument is flimsy. There’s nothing essential about it, you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.
What Russia is doing right now in Ukraine is disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible.
Demonstrate exactly how it's ad hominem. I couldn't care less about you in the first place. You haven't refuted anything I said neither regarding the whataboutism, nor any other point I made regarding the conflict, so please do elaborate how exactly my points about your whining of whataboutism is ad hominem?
> you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.
Why would I discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own if your argument is wholly based on the idea of morailty and ethics of actions (the ones you call disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible) that are supposed to be applied equally to everyone? I want to see how you apply it universally across the board, and until that happens I call you a person with an agenda to propagandise.
But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s
> But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s
Theres nazis in Ukraine just like how theres nazis in Russia and other countries what your point?.
There is no point of course -- other than to make yet another attempt at intellectual obfuscation, and to push people's emotional buttons.
As to what the video shows -- it was a local ceremony, not any kind of federal recognition of these fighters. So far there has not even been a legislative attempt to grant "hero" status to members of any of the fighting unites in WW II.
And that's the important point: all of these (in my view, quite nauseating) commemorations of either the pro-fascist political leaders, or of the various collaborating fighting units have been at the local, not federal level. Precisely because it remains such a painful and divisive topic.
And because by and large, Ukrainian society has moved light years beyond the events of these dark times. It is the regime in that large country to the north (and that of its smaller puppet state next door) that is continually trying to make everyone live in the past, as if WW II basically never ended.
One could say a lot more about it -- just as there are all kinds of things to say about how collaborationist history has been processed in all the other countries in Europe; including, last but not least, in the Soviet Union and modern Russia itself (in regard to its attempts to all but banish any mention of its notorious high-level cooperation with Nazi Germany from its history books).
One could, that is - provided there was an atmosphere of civility, and of respect for in discourse. Unfortunately this does not apply to the commenter you are responding to -- who, as we have seen, seems intent on dragging the discussion ever downward, into an endless cycle of intellectual evasion and ad hominem attack.
And in any case: none of this history has any bearing on the current conflict. And the whole narrative that it does, let alone that it justifies or explains the naked, old-school barbarism that has been inflicted upon Ukraine since early 2022, as is the subject of the original article in this thread -- is just bonkers.
In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.
Let's see, in 1994 Ukraine supports military uprisal in Chechnya and aids separatists and their terrorist field commanders arriving from Saudi Arabia and Middle East [1] in a war against Russia on the territory of Russia. Namely, UNA-UNSO (a nationalist “patriotic” [2] organization in Ukraine [3]) leaders Anatoli Lupinos and Dimitro Korchinski led Ukrainian delegations to Grozny to meet with Chechen leaders. Fast forward in 1995, the UNSO fighters organized as the “Viking Brigade” under the command of Oleksandr Muzychko (a man who vowed to fight "communists, Jews and Russians for as long as blood flows in his veins" [4]), are illegally crossing the Russian border in Chechnya and join Mujahideen terrorists in their fight against Russian regulary army.
Twenty years after, when the chickens of the foreign policy had come home to roost in Donbass of 2014, someone nicknamed "golergka" thinks that everything that contradicts his worldview must be a "completely crazy propaganda".
Ukraine SUPPORTS military appraisal in Chechny in 1994?
Do you want to actually read the Wikipedia article about UNA that you linked to?
UNA barely got 0.5% during 1994 elections and that was their best year.
In other words what youre saying is that actions leaders of some nationalistic organization that does not represent 99.985% of Ukrainians is representative of Ukraine? That is absurd!
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the Muj in Chechnya -- is equivalent to saying that Ukraine as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Which kind of like saying, "Well gosh, a lot of Irish folks in Boston supported the IRA back in the 70s-80s. Which means, you know, the United States supported the IRA!"
> Which kind of like saying, "Well gosh, a lot of Irish folks in Boston supported the IRA. Which means, you know, the United States supported the IRA!"
American support for the IRA was a lot higher, AFAICT, than Ukrainian support for anyone aligned against Russia in Chechnya was.
> Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the Muj in Chechnya -- is equivalent to saying that Ukraine as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with Crimea and Donbass in 2014 -- is equivalent to saying that Russia as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the terrorists in Baghdad/Kabul -- is equivalent to saying that Iraq/Afghanistan as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
In other words, the person registered "77 days ago" loses their entire awareness of role reversal in an attempt to fit reality into their botched worldview. It would be nice to hear, at least, what Ukraine did do to prosecute the so called fringe group that was threatening foreign relations of the entire state, but that would be too much for you to answer. Especially in the light of knowing that UNA-UNSO got integrated into the governing body of the country [1]. Let me guess: "they are still the minority". Great coping nonetheless.
>> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process
>> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
That statement was made 7 years after the war began in 2014, not before the war, and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began, which had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO (thouh after the war started, this changed.)
> and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began
Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
> Are you suggeting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
Specifically between the government in 2008 and the post-Maidan government, during which there was an arguable auto-coup followed by a definite revolution?
Yeah, there is a pretty severe discontinuity, not least of all on policy toward both NATO and Russia. Also, even insofar as the post-Maidan government might be seen as in general continuity of the pre-Yanukovych government that had sought NATO membership, NATO’s decision not to extend a MAP in 2008 in direct response to Putin’s objections, cooled Ukrainian interest, even in the pro-Western faction, because NATO was seen as unwilling to stand up for Ukraine against Russia. Putin had already won on NATO expansion before launching the war.
> > https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text
>> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
This was superseded by the new constitution that was adopted in 1996 as the Ukrainian SSR no longer exists this document no longer applies.
But I’m curious if you are saying that Ukraine is forced to follow this why isn’t Russia forced to follow the Budapest memorandum in which in pledged along with other nuclear powers at the time not to invade or threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Somehow I doubt that that understanding between NATO and Ukraine that was 13 years old when Russia invaded is what OP had in mind when they referred to “plenty of talk before the war” and “not listening to the right channels”—13 years going on 100 I might add given all that had transpired during those years. I believe the OP was suggesting that there was current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO, which if true, would obviously justify Russia’s attempt to obliterate the country. /s
I had in mind the entire 30 year history since independence during which certain factions have been pushing for NATO presence and eventual membership. The person below who says Putin "had already won on NATO" is wrong, from Putin's perspective, since his win condition was a guarantee that Ukraine would never join. This exact point was a sticking condition in the failed negotiations before 2022.
I think the poster has some point though, in that it is not all Ukrainian factions that have been pushing for this, and was perhaps not them as much as western powers which prevented this concession (their policy is influenced by their more powerful neighbours and backers!)
In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family.
Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible."
> When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine.
You were replying to a comment that’s clearly referring to current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO at the time of the invasion.
> In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible.”
Yes, obviously things are different now. Ukraine may very well be the next step in the NATO expansion that Putin has imposed upon himself.
The US did preemptively invade Panama in the past, at the first sign of General Noriega's shift toward the Soviet bloc, after his soliciting and receiving military aid from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Libya.
There are no government subsidies and bailouts in a free market, what you see in the US today is exactly the opposite of it: crony mixed economy with overreaching government control.
> "Much of the Russian military has not been affected negatively by this conflict" [1]
That's not even what he says, quote it properly.
"Much of the Russian military has not be been affected negatively by this conflict, one of those forces is their undersea forces".
Which is 100% true, they haven't lost a single submarine in this entire conflict.
Im not sure what your point is, is it that Russias military is so corrupted and rotting that they have to use T62's without even having significant losses?.
Because we have pictures and videos of Russians losing at least 1190 tanks in this conflict alone.
> What are the Ukrainian losses by the way? Is it above 300k already, as claimed by one of the presidential candidates? [1]
Your appeal to authority is noted and quite admirable but I don't think Robert Kennedy Junior has better estimates than the American intelligence community.
The American intelligence leaks the other week put the losses as.
Russia - 35.5k-43.5k KIA
Ukraine - 16k-17.5k KIA
significant losses for both countries, but no where near the meth induced fever dream of 300k.
> Which is 100% true, they haven't lost a single submarine in this entire conflict.
You're deliberately omitting the fact that he says "Much of the Russian military" and "one of those" in a single sentence and presume that he only speaks about submarines, whereas much of the military is still much of it, including submarines.
> The American intelligence leaks the other week put the losses as.
What period of time are these numbers for?
> Im not sure what your point is, is it that Russias military is so corrupted and rotting that they have to use T62's without even having significant losses?.
The mentioned leak data also suggest Ukraine would likely exhaust their air defense systems by the end of May [1]. Do you trust this intelligence estimate as well as the KIA numbers?
> You're deliberately omitting the fact that he says "Much of the Russian military" and "one of those" in a single sentence and presume that he only speaks about submarines, whereas much of the military is still much of it, including submarines.
Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.
But the ground forces has been completely destroyed they have lost some many vehicles, including tanks that they have started using tanks that they don't even produce anymore.
I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.
> What period of time are these numbers for?
Upto march this year, as it says on the document if you read it.
> The mentioned leak data also suggest Ukraine would likely exhaust their air defense systems by the end of May [1]. Do you trust this intelligence estimate as well as the KIA numbers?
Yes, which is why the west needed to and has been focusing on supplying Ukraine with air defence, which they have been doing.
> Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.
He didn't say parts of it, he said much of their military.
> But the ground forces has been completely destroyed
You've mentioned 35.5k-43.5k KIA losses for Russia up to March this year. Are you suggesting that these numbers comprise the complete ground forces?
> I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.
I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all. If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time? Is it the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?
> I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all.
But it's not being used as artillery its being used as tank. Indirect fire its not a bad idea but as a tank its going to melt in the face of anything at or never then a T64.
> If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time?
Well for one its crew is different to anything the Russian forces use now because it doesn't have a auto loader, its a cannon is too weak to really take on anything newer then it.
> Is that the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?
No but T55's have been spotted getting moved around so theres hope yet.
> following the terms of the German-Soviet treaty that facilitated the start of ww ii.
Correction: you were meant to say British-French-Polish-German treaty of 30th September 1938, that provided "legal" grounds for the German, Polish, and Hungarian annexation of pieces of land of Czechoslovakia, preceded by the United Kingdom and France "informally" asking Czechoslovakia to cede its Sudetenland territory to Germany on 20th September, which was followed by Polish territorial demands brought on 21 September and Hungarian on 22th September.
> I should have said natural gas, not gasoline.
You need to sleep a bit more: "Spain Boosts Russia LNG Imports 84% While EU Urges Less Reliance"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-14/spain-boo...