The Situation in the Ukraine. #31

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Six years ago that was, they'd do well to clean up their act if they want Western support although I doubt the ethics of it really matter to the powers that be!

Why ask for a written response only to agree to keep it private? One of the key points for Russia of the whole affair was to gain the high "moral ground" by the publicity of the interaction. I mean, everybody knew how it was going to end, unless some dimwits in the Kremlin had hope for something, anything....

Fact is Russia didn't get security guarantees on paper like it wanted.

The U.S is of course smart in asking to keep the response quiet. Prevents any sort of propaganda boom from Russia by capitalizing on the document, whether to portray U.S as evil, non-agreement capable, or as weak (whichever flavor). It also keeps internal U.S politics stable - avoiding partisan politicking around the response (specially for Biden/Democrats with coming midterms). My guess is that the U.S had no intention of delivering a response. Russia pushed for it hard in the last meeting and then the U.S inserted the caveat of keeping it private if Russia really wanted it (and Russia acquiesced to that - thus the one week "extension").

If there was "any" capitulation that had to be kept "quiet" you would already know about it from the U.S press, as partisan politicking would come into play with a serious damaging leak from the U.S itself (it's a State Dept. doc... easy to leak). Moreover anything on that paper is a paper lie - meaning it's worthless. It's no legally binding agreement or treaty of any kind - the whole point of the affair to begin with (the need for legally binding security guarantees on paper). And we all know words and verbal promises are worthless so.

It's kinda sad it's more probable we are bound to know the contents of the document through a U.S leak than through Russia. Why even accept such terms? Accept no shit at all. It's worthless as it's already - its only value being that for public propaganda.

Well.... strategy hasn't been Russia's forte for decades. One step forward, one step back.

All the talk about Latin America is big time bluff to me. The second you try to open a naval base anywhere in the America's is the second those countries get a massive target on their back (greater than what it's already) on top of U.S deployment of Air defense, offensive weaponry in Eastern Europe, and bases (naval or otherwise) all the way up to the Baltic countries. That's why those countries were turned into NATO members in the first place and why Ukraine/Georgia were in queue.

The Russians may or may not keep it all private. We will get a pretty good idea of the contents when Lavrov tells the essence of it to the Russian people.

We will then see what the Russian actions are that follows, perhaps the real tell.

Then there are the Normandy Four discussions that started today.

What with Putin in Beijing, there are a couple of weeks on interesting couple of weeks are on the way.

ATLASCUB wrote:Why ask for a written response only to agree to keep it private? One of the key points for Russia of the whole affair was to gain the high "moral ground" by the publicity of the interaction. I mean, everybody knew how it was going to end, unless some dimwits in the Kremlin had hope for something, anything....

Fact is Russia didn't get security guarantees on paper like it wanted.

The U.S is of course smart in asking to keep the response quiet. Prevents any sort of propaganda boom from Russia by capitalizing on the document, whether to portray U.S as evil, non-agreement capable, or as weak (whichever flavor). It also keeps internal U.S politics stable - avoiding partisan politicking around the response (specially for Biden/Democrats with coming midterms). My guess is that the U.S had no intention of delivering a response. Russia pushed for it hard in the last meeting and then the U.S inserted the caveat of keeping it private if Russia really wanted it (and Russia acquiesced to that - thus the one week "extension").

If there was "any" capitulation that had to be kept "quiet" you would already know about it from the U.S press, as partisan politicking would come into play with a serious damaging leak from the U.S itself (it's a State Dept. doc... easy to leak). Moreover anything on that paper is a paper lie - meaning it's worthless. It's no legally binding agreement or treaty of any kind - the whole point of the affair to begin with (the need for legally binding security guarantees on paper). And we all know words and verbal promises are worthless so.

It's kinda sad it's more probable we are bound to know the contents of the document through a U.S leak than through Russia. Why even accept such terms? Accept no shit at all. It's worthless as it's already - its only value being that for public propaganda.

Well.... strategy hasn't been Russia's forte for decades. One step forward, one step back.

All the talk about Latin America is big time bluff to me. The second you try to open a naval base anywhere in the America's is the second those countries get a massive target on their back (greater than what it's already) on top of U.S deployment of Air defense, offensive weaponry in Eastern Europe, and bases (naval or otherwise) all the way up to the Baltic countries. That's why those countries were turned into NATO members in the first place and why Ukraine/Georgia were in queue.

The US can bring their whole army to the Baltics and Poland if they want

The problem is, as everyone who has thought about the issue understands, including in Washington - is that the Chinese are next in line to make demands of the Americans.
They're going to demand the US vacate Taiwan, while Russia is pulling in troops into Europe and sending gear to Latin America, erecting bases there. The Americans will be busy on their own home turf, and in Europe, and will have their forces there. They'll have their forces in the Middle East where Iran is only stepping up activity. What will they therefore defend Taiwan with?

The US can do military strikes in Latin America but that will open up a huge can of worms that they don't want to deal with.
The sovereigntist bloc in the Americas already includes Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina and now Peru.
It just keeps expanding, because the old US instruments of conducting coups there and bringing in the descendants of Spanish landlords into power stopped working. We saw that in Bolivia, where Morales was overthrown but given asylum in Mexico, only for his party to come back to power anyway a couple years later. We saw the failure of the colour revolution scenario in Venezuela. In Ecuador the US brought in a man with the first name of 'Lenin', who then sold everything to Western banks. That's the latest success of the US there, but probably the final one.
Mexico, Peru, Argentina.. since when were they the revolutionaries? All the way back when Mexico hosted Trotsky? Well, yet now they are.
The next one in line might be Columbia, a steadfast US ally, but with a massively unpopular neo-liberal government, and a history of insurgency. They have an election due in May.
And just what the hell is the US going to do about this massive headache on their borders? There are millions upon millions of Mexicans living in the US itself. This would be the equivalent, for Russia, if all of Central Asia was to fall to radical Islam and started pumping out terrorists. This is the scale of the disaster for the US.

So the idea that the US will act in Latin America and South America.. well let them go ahead. What will it achieve for them, I don't know.

Even if this whole thing ends in a stalemate between Russia and the US, the Chinese will expand to Taiwan. This would already be a win.
And then like chequers, it will be the Chinese turn to tie down the US in some place, while Russia advances in another.

]

I just found this article stating that their was no promise of NATO not enlarging and Gorbachev says no; I would like an analysis of this article.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

flamming_python wrote:

The US can bring their whole army to the Baltics and Poland if they want

The problem is, as everyone who has thought about the issue understands, including in Washington - is that the Chinese are next in line to make demands of the Americans.
They're going to demand the US vacate Taiwan, while Russia is pulling in troops into Europe and sending gear to Latin America, erecting bases there. The Americans will be busy on their own home turf, and in Europe, and will have their forces there. They'll have their forces in the Middle East where Iran is only stepping up activity. What will they therefore defend Taiwan with?

The US can do military strikes in Latin America but that will open up a huge can of worms that they don't want to deal with.
The sovereigntist bloc in the Americas already includes Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina and now Peru.
It just keeps expanding, because the old US instruments of conducting coups there and bringing in the descendants of Spanish landlords into power stopped working. We saw that in Bolivia, where Morales was overthrown but given asylum in Mexico, only for his party to come back to power anyway a couple years later. We saw the failure of the colour revolution scenario in Venezuela. In Ecuador the US brought in a man with the first name of 'Lenin', who then sold everything to Western banks. That's the latest success of the US there, but probably the final one.
Mexico, Peru, Argentina.. since when were they the revolutionaries? All the way back when Mexico hosted Trotsky? Well, yet now they are.
The next one in line might be Columbia, a steadfast US ally, but with a massively unpopular neo-liberal government, and a history of insurgency. They have an election due in May.
And just what the hell is the US going to do about this massive headache on their borders? There are millions upon millions of Mexicans living in the US itself. This would be the equivalent, for Russia, if all of Central Asia was to fall to radical Islam and started pumping out terrorists. This is the scale of the disaster for the US.

So the idea that the US will act in Latin America and South America.. well let them go ahead. What will it achieve for them, I don't know.

Even if this whole thing ends in a stalemate between Russia and the US, the Chinese will expand to Taiwan. This would already be a win.
And then like chequers, it will be the Chinese turn to tie down the US in some place, while Russia advances in another.

Defend Taiwan? Lol.... last I checked the U.S still sticks to the "One-China" principle. The U.S has no security obligations with Taiwan just like it doesn't with Ukraine (those "nations" are not protectorates). Taiwan, just like Ukraine, are disposable pawns used to create instability and tension around a rival's borders. The American policy when it comes to Taiwan is simple: prevent a pacific reunification with the mainland  aka poison the well as much as possible to prevent that and move forward to solidify that position in turtle steps as much as China allows through constant pressure and small steps. Side objective: Force China to a bloody reunification if push comes to shove.... pretext of which to use to alienate China in the region and worldwide. Taiwan is merely a containment tool, in a broad toolkit.

The U.S already has an unsinkable carrier with 120 mill people - it's called Japan. And Australia further South.

As for China asking for "security guarantee's" in the same manner as Russia.... lol. Not gonna happen. The Chinese don't operate in that manner and care a tad more for their appearance in the world. Russia looks like a weak beggar - sorry to break the bubble  but those are the optics - and if you believe in American propaganda, the optics are: evil bully Russia giving ultimatums.

The U.S has many ways to hurt Latin American countries and divide and conquer works extremely well there. The U.S doesn't have to invade x country to cause problem for these targets, and there is always the option of removing all friction to flip the state and neutralize externalities (détente if you will). The U.S can accommodate Cuba/Nicaragua and Venezuela. The U.S just doesn't fucking want to, nor feel checkmated to do so as a last resort. There lies the risk of overplaying your hand seeking absolute puppet regimes... which the U.S constantly plays after. Russia's influence in the region is mainly localized to Cuba, the kingpin, and it branches out from there. Very checkbook dependent now that ideology is no longer at play.

A proactive Russian foreign policy is bound to create trouble for the Empire regardless of the small details in this or that region that's why I'm a proponent of it. Not the shit Putin and cadre have been practicing for the last 2 decades +. A proactive foreign policy is not a trump card, it's a bare minimum. How it was during Soviet times (at least at some points in time), except, the U.S had much less control then than it does now. In other words, the U.S is in a far better position.... losing influence in some areas will not make or break them - contrary to what anyone with no clue hopes. It would be better for the world to start the beginning of processes that make the world a semblance of what it was prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is the bottom-line (bipolar, multipolar.... whatever word fancies it... "ultrapolar").

Isos wrote:Most of those bases are useless frankly speaking. They barely protect against small arms and host light vehicles and soldiers.

They couldn't do anything against talibans. Against tupolevs, sukhoi and Iskanders, half of them will be destroyed the first hours.

But Russia lacks missiles. Iskander is good but lacks range and number of launchers. Same for Kalibr they still don't have enough ships carrying them and the one that carry it have 8 missiles at most for a big part of them which means smaller salvos.

They spent to much for Iskander to be perfect and manoeuvrable and anti ABM... but for most targets in nato countries a cheaper simplier SCUD with improved precision is enough. If it had 1500km range it would also be more disuasive. Hitting deep into enemy is a must have. 400 launchers of such missile and a stock of 800 missiles would make a big impact on any plans to attack them. 2 salvo of 400 missiles is a huge punch that no one can sustain.

Doesn’t Russia have a lot of land based kalibre/club variants?

And they have a lot of air launched kh55

ATLASCUB wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

ATLASCUB wrote:Why ask for a written response only to agree to keep it private? One of the key points for Russia of the whole affair was to gain the high "moral ground" by the publicity of the interaction. I mean, everybody knew how it was going to end, unless some dimwits in the Kremlin had hope for something, anything....

Fact is Russia didn't get security guarantees on paper like it wanted.

The U.S is of course smart in asking to keep the response quiet. Prevents any sort of propaganda boom from Russia by capitalizing on the document, whether to portray U.S as evil, non-agreement capable, or as weak (whichever flavor). It also keeps internal U.S politics stable - avoiding partisan politicking around the response (specially for Biden/Democrats with coming midterms). My guess is that the U.S had no intention of delivering a response. Russia pushed for it hard in the last meeting and then the U.S inserted the caveat of keeping it private if Russia really wanted it (and Russia acquiesced to that - thus the one week "extension").

If there was "any" capitulation that had to be kept "quiet" you would already know about it from the U.S press, as partisan politicking would come into play with a serious damaging leak from the U.S itself (it's a State Dept. doc... easy to leak). Moreover anything on that paper is a paper lie - meaning it's worthless. It's no legally binding agreement or treaty of any kind - the whole point of the affair to begin with (the need for legally binding security guarantees on paper). And we all know words and verbal promises are worthless so.

It's kinda sad it's more probable we are bound to know the contents of the document through a U.S leak than through Russia. Why even accept such terms? Accept no shit at all. It's worthless as it's already - its only value being that for public propaganda.

Well.... strategy hasn't been Russia's forte for decades. One step forward, one step back.

All the talk about Latin America is big time bluff to me. The second you try to open a naval base anywhere in the America's is the second those countries get a massive target on their back (greater than what it's already) on top of U.S deployment of Air defense, offensive weaponry in Eastern Europe, and bases (naval or otherwise) all the way up to the Baltic countries. That's why those countries were turned into NATO members in the first place and why Ukraine/Georgia were in queue.

The US can bring their whole army to the Baltics and Poland if they want

The problem is, as everyone who has thought about the issue understands, including in Washington - is that the Chinese are next in line to make demands of the Americans.
They're going to demand the US vacate Taiwan, while Russia is pulling in troops into Europe and sending gear to Latin America, erecting bases there. The Americans will be busy on their own home turf, and in Europe, and will have their forces there. They'll have their forces in the Middle East where Iran is only stepping up activity. What will they therefore defend Taiwan with?

The US can do military strikes in Latin America but that will open up a huge can of worms that they don't want to deal with.
The sovereigntist bloc in the Americas already includes Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina and now Peru.
It just keeps expanding, because the old US instruments of conducting coups there and bringing in the descendants of Spanish landlords into power stopped working. We saw that in Bolivia, where Morales was overthrown but given asylum in Mexico, only for his party to come back to power anyway a couple years later. We saw the failure of the colour revolution scenario in Venezuela. In Ecuador the US brought in a man with the first name of 'Lenin', who then sold everything to Western banks. That's the latest success of the US there, but probably the final one.
Mexico, Peru, Argentina.. since when were they the revolutionaries? All the way back when Mexico hosted Trotsky? Well, yet now they are.
The next one in line might be Columbia, a steadfast US ally, but with a massively unpopular neo-liberal government, and a history of insurgency. They have an election due in May.
And just what the hell is the US going to do about this massive headache on their borders? There are millions upon millions of Mexicans living in the US itself. This would be the equivalent, for Russia, if all of Central Asia was to fall to radical Islam and started pumping out terrorists. This is the scale of the disaster for the US.

So the idea that the US will act in Latin America and South America.. well let them go ahead. What will it achieve for them, I don't know.

Even if this whole thing ends in a stalemate between Russia and the US, the Chinese will expand to Taiwan. This would already be a win.
And then like chequers, it will be the Chinese turn to tie down the US in some place, while Russia advances in another.

Defend Taiwan? Lol.... last I checked the U.S still sticks to the "One-China" principle. The U.S has no security obligations with Taiwan just like it doesn't with Ukraine (those "nations" are not protectorates). Taiwan, just like Ukraine, are disposable pawns used to create instability and tension around a rival's borders. The American policy when it comes to Taiwan is simple: prevent a pacific reunification with the mainland  aka poison the well as much as possible to prevent that and move forward to solidify that position in turtle steps as much as China allows through constant pressure and small steps. Side objective: Force China to a bloody reunification if push comes to shove.... pretext of which to use to alienate China in the region and worldwide.

The U.S already has an unsinkable carrier with 120 mill people - it's called Japan. And Australia further South.

As for China asking for "security guarantee's" in the same manner as Russia.... lol. Not gonna happen. The Chinese don't operate in that manner and care a tad more for their appearance in the world (Russia looks like a weak beggar - sorry to break the bubble).

The U.S has many ways to hurt Latin American countries and divide and conquer works extremely well there. The U.S doesn't have to invade x country to cause problem for these targets, and there is always the option of removing all friction to flip the state and neutralize externalities (détente if you will). The U.S can accommodate Cuba/Nicaragua and Venezuela. The U.S just doesn't fucking want to, nor feel checkmated to do so as a last resort. There lies the risk of overplaying your hand... which they constantly play. Russia's influence in the region is mainly localized to Cuba, the kingpin, and it branches out from there. Very checkbook dependent now that ideology is no longer at play.

A proactive Russian foreign policy is bound to create trouble for the Empire regardless of the small details in this or that region that's why I'm a proponent of it. Not the shit Putin and cadre have been practicing for the last 2 decades +. A proactive foreign policy is not a trump card, it's a bare minimum. How it was during Soviet times (at least at some points in time), except, the U.S had much less control then than it does now. In other words, the U.S is in a far better position.... losing influence in some areas will not make or break them - contrary to what anyone with no clue hopes. It would be better for the world to start the beginning of processes that make the world a semblance of what it was prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is the bottom-line.

The EU + US together at the moment accounts for 1/3rd of the worlds economy - and that's nominal figures. This figure is sliding by about 1-1.5% every year.

Far better position my ass.

Again what can the US do in Latin and South America? Realistically? Russia can't dominate nations in Eastern Europe. The world has changed. But then Russia doesn't need to.
The US can't dominate the countries south of their borders either, because again the world has changed. Most of those countries have more trade with China now, than the US.
Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are just the front-line states. They in turn are now being supported by a coalition of countries in the region, who aren't prepared to act openly against the US for the moment.

Again, the minute the US loses Taiwan, the domino effect will initiate. Everyone will start to hedge bets. And it will happen entirely peacefully. The US will simply have to walk away, and Taiwan will have to start negotiating with Beijing for a Hong-Kong like deal. As it hasn't been recognized by virtually anyone, no-one will interfere and with the US out of the picture, no-one will attempt to provide it support.
The US has been grooming a Taiwan separatist political party as of late, and that it got Lithuania to try and recognize Taiwan on the sly only drew China's ire. It's a similar game as what the US has been doing with Russia, giving the Ukrainians the green light for moving forces to the contact line, preparing an invasion of the rebel region.
Both China and Russia have had it, and are now playing their own game

What Russia looks like is irrelevant. It's changing the facts on the ground. Dividing the EU's and US's positions away from each other. Causing panic in Kiev albeit much of this was self-inflicted through the US's and Britain's own rhetoric. Now supporting Latin America.

Japan? Sure it will stick to the US. Not so sure about South Korea. Australia will stick with the US - but what good will it do? The rest of Asia will start to gravitate to China.

The world is rapidly changing. It's going to become more varied with more centres of power, once the situation reaches a new equilibrium. Yet one way or the other, the new equilibrium won't favour the US as much as the old one did. This will give Russia more breathing room, and China too, to carry on with development.

I don't think we're in disagreement that a multipolar configuration is better than a unipolar one.

As for the U.S "losing" Taiwan. Again, neither Ukraine nor Taiwan are make or break for the U.S. They're acquired tastes - merely pawns for containment policy. Just like they're not for China or Russia either at the moment, although highly important.

To attempt to flip by some erroneous logic the relation dependency (more emphasis on American defense of said territories) is crazy to me. That's like saying were the U.S to lose say.. Canada, to a Russian puppet regime, the inverse happening.... that is the U.S regaining and booting out the Russian puppet regime from Canada means that Russia is bound for a domino-like fall due to its inability to hold Canada's defense. It's nonsensical. What is simply happening is oversized influence being pushed a tad back. In simple words, Taiwan means more to China, and Ukraine means more to Russia (and to their respective strength and position in the world) in order of magnitudes more than to the U.S, making the intellectual exercise to squeeze some logic to the contrary laughable.

But to each their own I guess.

On the Brink of War With Russia, Ukrainians Are Resigned and Prepared

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-russia-war-prepared-11643042213

Com­puter whiz Danylo Kovzhun taught his chil­dren to han­dle a pis­tol. Con­fec­tioner Ro­man Nabozh­niak is train­ing col­leagues to run his busi­ness so he can fo­cus on fight­ing Rus­sians.⁦

Close to Iraq war material....

Goebbels would be proud.

What do you guys think of the comments by the Prime Minister of Norway about Russian buildup a sign of weakness?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/norways-pm-says-russia-build-182438728.html

I do not know how many of you guys watched Anthony Blinken's press briefing yesterday. It seems more than the Yankees the Brits are eager for a war with Russia. Maybe because Brits have nothing to lose.

This guy Benjamin Hall asked Blinken instead of threatening Russia with consequences why doesn't the US directly get militarily involved.

https://twitter.com/BenjaminHallFNC/status/1486440196023668737?s=20

Quite possible that British troops embedded with the Ukrainian army might start a firefight by deliberately targeting Russian troops.

If that is the case, then UN would side with Russia and UK would lose entirely, even if it is Ukraine that is hit and destroyed.

There is no way Europe can replace Russian gas imports with imports from Qatar and the US.

I appreciate you are talking about volume and capacity, but another factor is that they can't replace even a large portion of Russian gas supplies for anywhere near the same low price either... so if push comes to shove and Russia directs its gas East Europe wont be getting enough gas to meet its needs now let alone future growth requirements, but it will also be paying rather more for the gas it does get...

You're conflating different things to cry for bs on top of a generalized strawman. Try again kiddo.

Ahhh please... this poker game is a game where the west had four packs of cards to pick their hand from and they are still fucking things up... you make it sound like Russia is on its knees, when this is Russia just standing up... the west had a choice... they could offer a helping hand and then work with this new potentially powerful partner or they could try to knock him down.

They spent the first 10 years stealing from him and the last 20 years trying to keep him on the ground while pretending to help him up... well not really pretending... but now it is clear what they are doing and the realisation for the rest of the world that this is what they do to every country... they don't want to share basic human dignity or human rights...

Countries around the world will look at what Russia has done and realise with their help they might be able to achieve the same and that is what the west fears... an alternative to the west where you can develop and advance, but don't have to give up and assimilate and hand over the crown jewels so to speak.

The west is the Ori of Stargate Fiction... offering ascendance and the good life for faith and also power, but never actually delivering anything but a basic simple medieval level of comfort to its followers... if they are lucky.

Probably a part of a false flag operation. Remember the clown presidents quotes 2 days ago.

Or someone pissed off that clearly the western world don't care about Ukrainians or they would be sending millions of dollars of food and things they can actually use instead of weapons to be a meat shield for a western promoted conflict against Russia.

Overall as I said months ago it is also proved that Putin's Russia is non reliable country that is more than happy to make international crisis in order to jump on opportunistic gains. So country is also heavy involved in couple of hot spots in order to bring more destabilization.

It is funny you blame Putin for a situation the US and EU created when they overthrew the democratically elected government of the Ukraine and replaced it with pro nazi criminals happy to bomb and shell Ukrainians that don't approve of their new laws and rules.

The west has been claiming Russia was about to invade the Ukraine for the last 5-6 years when they were not claiming they had already invaded and that is who they are shelling in the Donbass.

Kiev moved their forces to the line of contact and in response to that violation of the Minsk agreement the Russians have moved their forces in the region to a position where they can do something if Kiev does something stupid. It is this movement of forces the west is going apeshit about... because it clearly counters their plans for Kiev to go in and genocide some Ukrainian people who are not anti Russian enough for their tastes.

Russia has not invaded anyone.

We can remember few years ago how Putin claimed that Russia is brining something different to world stage, with more integrity and accountability compared to "corrupted" US - that is also quite a nonsense in this time perspective lol.

He already has... he let the people of the Crimea decide their own fate in a referendum and if Kiev is dumb enough to start something I am sure they will be crushed and pushed back and the people of the Donbass will be given a similar choice.... when in the history of the entire world has the west ever done that?

They make decisions and then they bomb and invade and then impose a pro them government... in that regard Russia is different and has more integrity and accountability.

The problem for Russia and US is that we are moving full speed into multipolar world, this means neither US nor Russia have power they had 20-30 years ago, and both will continue to decline in mid term so we will have more crisis all over places and both will create tantrums in the process.

Russia is pushing for a multipolar world, as is China... neither country wants a world where the US decides and the sycophant toadies that call themselves the west agree and sing the same tune once they have learned it properly of course. This is not about Russia taking over and replacing the US and it is not about China taking over and replacing the US, it is about countries getting a real say and no world police superpower imposing their will on everyone else because so far it has only to benefit the US at the cost of everyone else including countries the US claims are allies and friends.

Now I am sure that many NATO members think that joining this club is their right , and they are free to join . But joining this club , is not like joining you local tennis club . And I think they make a mistake in this , in peacetime . Thinking from the comfort of their soft executive armchair , paid for by the yanks . But joining this club has real consequences for them and others . It is not a game of fun or a tennis club . But even if you join a tennis club , you have to be ready to get tennis elbow ! Or an overdeveloped right hand .

Putin knows they are not going to stop countries joining HATO, but now that they have floored this demand the countermeasures Russia now takes for countries that join HATO can be pretty clear.... for instance selling S-400s to Iran and Cuba, or Su-35s or other more advanced platforms can simply be justified by... well we can't stop countries joining HATO, you can't stop us selling weapons to countries we want to sell weapons to sort of thing.

I think the US will then want some secret talks and secret agreements going forward.... I mean what are they going to do... send anti tank missiles to Ukraine or arm terrorists in Syria... or launch attacks on Iran? They are already doing all that.

I could not believe this , when you said it . But looks like you are right , Russia did want to join at one point , on account of common European heritage . But then they should not complain about NATO expansion , but they do ! Sometime ago , a Russian poster on IMF ( Iran military forum ) , was saying the same thing to me ; we are Europeans and want to join with Europe .

HATO was supposed to be about peace and security, so allowing Russia to join would have been their smartest move... if that were true... but the reality is that HATO has nothing to do with peace or security... it is a mechanism for the US to control Europe and organise opposition to Russia.

Putin wanted to create a political and economic and military organisation from the Atlantic to the Pacific... the EU and HATO wanted Russian resources but refuses to see Russia as anything but a servant that must follow orders.

Even recently German politicians talked about talking to Russia from a position of strength... which of course means they wanted to instruct the Russians and lecture them, rather than discuss and negotiate.

That is why Russia sent its information to HATO and the US but not the EU.

Suppose by some miracle that Russia is initially accepted as part of NATO . Then what would happen over Libya or Syria or Yugoslavia ? Would the Russians leave NATO , because they had decided against the attacks ? Or would it stay in and at the same time fly planes to bomb and use it's AD to shoot planes down ?

Even if they chose to accept them they would draw it out over an enormous period of time like they did with WTO entry, or meeting WADA requirements to compete in international sports.

And surely if Russia says that NATO expansion is destabilising , then it's joining would also create greater instability against some other nation .

They are calling it destabilising because they now recognise it as an anti Russia club, which is also why they are against its expansion.

Therefore reality fights back against our desires or wants . Any strong nation or group of nations ultimately sets out on an expansionist course . And as a result destroys itself . Or catches Crabs ! With their very well developed tennis Right hand .

Just before WWI it was believed a world war would not be possible because two major factions had developed in Europe each serving as the others deterrent... there could not be war in Europe because the two enormous colossal factions would make a conflict horrendously costly and brutal for both sides with the result being a terrible stalemate that could last years.

Of course it was bollocks.

You don't prevent war by building up coalitions of the stupid that arm themselves up with trillions of dollars in weapons.... eventually they end up using them.

The biggest adversary for USA is not Russia, or China...it's the EU.

Of course, and so the whole point of HATO in Europe is to allow the US to direct the EU to fight Russia because good trade ties might lead to the EU realising they don't really need the US at all. The US is doing exactly the same in Asia/Pacific, where they are recruiting Japan and South Korea and Australia and India against China... the other countries don't matter but getting India to fight against China is their core goal because if India were to ally with China the US and any allies in the region would not have a chance to limit them or control them.... they are using India to destroy China and in their view ruining the future of India to grow and rival China or US so essentially they are killing two birds with one stone... just the same as in Europe... using the EU to damage Russia weakens both potential rivals.

A multi polar world scares the US because it means the EU and Russia and China and India and lots of other countries can think for themselves... they might work together or they might not... it will be completely up to them.

It becomes sus when the US doesn't want it public.

Then again, Americans and Europeans aren't very....smart.

For all the talk about rights and freedom of the press and transparancy... they talk the talk but never walk the walk.

These next talks will not bring anything in anyway.Ukraine is unlikely to change its behavior towards Donbas

How much more time does Zelensky have in power?

Why ask for a written response only to agree to keep it private?

It is a written response... if they break it then obviously Russia would make any agreements they agreed to public which would be doubly embarrassing... it is likely concessions in regard to their level of defence of Ukraine and Georgia in case of conflict that they don't want Ukraine and Georgia to hear about.

Fact is Russia didn't get security guarantees on paper like it wanted.

The fact that the US does not want them to talk about it suggests they did get some things.

The U.S is of course smart in asking to keep the response quiet. Prevents any sort of propaganda boom from Russia by capitalizing on the document, whether to portray U.S as evil, non-agreement capable, or as weak (whichever flavor).

Not smart at all, it is their normal modus operandi... ask Assange or Snowden.... if you keep the war crimes quiet then countries continue to cooperate or at least don't ask awkward questions.

My guess is that the U.S had no intention of delivering a response. Russia pushed for it hard in the last meeting and then the U.S inserted the caveat of keeping it private if Russia really wanted it (and Russia acquiesced to that - thus the one week "extension").

Putin said several times he was not expecting them to agree... that is the point... the west seems to think it is in control and that Russia is like any other country and has to do what they say.... a large part of this was about Russia saying either show us respect or we are done. The fact that they want their reply to be kept secret tells us everything we need to know about the west...

If there was "any" capitulation that had to be kept "quiet" you would already know about it from the U.S press, as partisan politicking would come into play with a serious damaging leak from the U.S itself (it's a State Dept. doc... easy to leak).

It would only be leaked if it was a republican president... the US intel and bureaucracy is infested with democrats, who know that they will go to jail for that level of mistake.

Moreover anything on that paper is a paper lie - meaning it's worthless. It's no legally binding agreement or treaty of any kind - the whole point of the affair to begin with (the need for legally binding security guarantees on paper). And we all know words and verbal promises are worthless so.

Putin mentioned that anything they agreed to was not reliable... even if they respected it, the next president could rip it up, but this is about telling the west that Russia has security interests and if you step on them... they will likely cut your foot off.

It was a message that they are done with silly games the west likes to play.

Russia can work with the west but they are also prepared to work without the west too.

It's kinda sad it's more probable we are bound to know the contents of the document through a U.S leak than through Russia. Why even accept such terms? Accept no shit at all. It's worthless as it's already - its only value being that for public propaganda.

A leak from the west is unlikely because it would clearly damage the US position because they likely sold out their allies again... if Trump was in power then of course they would leak, but with creepy joe in power... that would be enough for the republicans to demand impeachments or worse...

Well.... strategy hasn't been Russia's forte for decades. One step forward, one step back.

Not at all... the west has embraced and taken in a lot of failed states that will milk it for everything they can.

The financial and military position of Russia actually suggesting stagnation or just keeping their heads above water is not an accurate description of the actual situation... except through the distorted prism of the BBC or CNN or Fox News...

All the talk about Latin America is big time bluff to me. The second you try to open a naval base anywhere in the America's is the second those countries get a massive target on their back (greater than what it's already) on top of U.S deployment of Air defense, offensive weaponry in Eastern Europe, and bases (naval or otherwise) all the way up to the Baltic countries.

I rather doubt they will build a lot of naval bases, it is more likely they will engage in mutual trade and build economic relations... besides expansion of HATO means US deployments and missiles and weapons in Eastern Europe... that is happening now and would continue to happen no matter what... which makes it a rather hollow threat.

That's why those countries were turned into NATO members in the first place and why Ukraine/Georgia were in queue.

Exactly... that was the plan all along so it makes sense for Russia to look elsewhere for trade and good relations with the rest of the world.... let eastern europe stew in their own juices... hating Russia as much as they like.

So the idea that the US will act in Latin America and South America.. well let them go ahead. What will it achieve for them, I don't know.

Their track record on their acts seems to backfire more than anything Russia starts, so let them act... they are blithering idiots and only make things worse most of the time.

But Russia lacks missiles. Iskander is good but lacks range and number of launchers. Same for Kalibr they still don't have enough ships carrying them and the one that carry it have 8 missiles at most for a big part of them which means smaller salvos.

Problems solved with Trump ripping up the INF treaty of course... ground launched and air launched Kalibrs, and of course sub launched missiles too.... Kalibre is a 533mm calibre missile for a reason.

They spent to much for Iskander to be perfect and manoeuvrable and anti ABM... but for most targets in nato countries a cheaper simplier SCUD with improved precision is enough. If it had 1500km range it would also be more disuasive. Hitting deep into enemy is a must have. 400 launchers of such missile and a stock of 800 missiles would make a big impact on any plans to attack them. 2 salvo of 400 missiles is a huge punch that no one can sustain.

Thanks to Trump you will likely get your wish... Kinzhal has a range of 2,000km against sea and ground targets and ground launched Zircon over 1,000km...

I just found this article stating that their was no promise of NATO not enlarging and Gorbachev says no; I would like an analysis of this article.

Occasionally western politicians claim there was no promises of not expanding HATO, but their own archives show there were repeated promises by a range of prominent western politicians.

What do you guys think of the comments by the Prime Minister of Norway about Russian buildup a sign of weakness?

Hilarious.... Russia has built up its defences inside its own border near a hostile country that has moved its forces to a region they signed the Minsk agreement that did not allow them to mass forces in that region.

If Russian forces in Russia is weakness from Russia what is US forces and US ammo supplies and UK forces and UK ammo supplies and HATO forces and HATO ammo supplies build ups in Ukraine?

A sign of weakness would be verbal support for Kiev and then saying they wont defend Kievs forces if Russia actually fights them.

WTF is HATO for if not to fight Russia defending HATO allies... the US alone spends ten times more on weapons than Russia does... so does the UK and likely France and probably a few other HATO countries, yet collectively they are going to run away from a conflict in Ukraine if Russia gets involved.

Weakness you say...

If that is the case, then UN would side with Russia and UK would lose entirely, even if it is Ukraine that is hit and destroyed.

The UN will always side with the US or be vetoed, but that wont help the western forces in the Ukraine that get crushed.

But it threw egg in the face at Georgia in 2008. Legitimized russias intervention internationally even if it doesn't matter.

Defenders of Ukraine

RT needs to just use subtitles....