Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[A.P. Richelieu]

When did Putin agree to NATO Expansion? I don't think he ever did, it is not just about NATO expansion, it is about regime change in Ukraine by the west(US, UK) and bringing in puppet regime and Ultra Nationalists fascists who are anti-Russian and who committed war crimes against the Russians, then instead of diplomacy and giving respect to Russia creating war in Donbas and killing more Russians.
The truth is that EU countries were no longer interested in NATO and Military buildup and were instead focused on socio-economic development and were getting closer to Russia, so US and probably UK also, created this conflict with Russia to achieve their multiple goals.


Like I said if Iraq and Afghanistan had the kind of support Ukraine is receiving they would have defeated the US and NATO in a few months.

The ”regime change” was actually a vote in the Ukrainan Parliament after the President committed impeachable acts, and stole many billions of dollars.
The President remained so until the end of his term, and then Ukraine elected a new President according to the constitution,
Russias attack on Ukraine was started even before the President fled.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565339688163979269

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565336828902645761

 

[Thinker3]

Here from the Nato
The Nato/Russia agreement of May 27, 1997
in 3 languages English, Russian and French

https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/media/59451/1997_nato_russia_founding_act.pdf

Yes, where did it say that Russia agrees to NATO expansion?

 

[Thinker3]

The ”regime change” was actually a vote in the Ukrainan Parliament after the President committed impeachable acts, and stole many billions of dollars.
The President remained so until the end of his term, and then Ukraine elected a new President according to the constitution,
Russias attack on Ukraine was started even before the President fled.

That is not how regime change was done, the actual things happen behind the curtain, what you say happened is for common people.

 

[ZeGerman]

Iraq did not possess any credible AT weaponry to destroy enemy tanks. All their equipment was heavily outdated and obsolete by the time it came to the first gulf War.

What is a base RpG7 supposed to do against an Abrams? Their tanks were obsolete using obsolete ammo. I mean the only credible thing they had wad their AD which shot down some 45 coalition jets down. (Total coalition losses come to 75).

You clearly didn't go into the details. You probably looked at numbers on the Wikipedia page and thought " omg muh nato so stronk"

you need to step back and read what i am actually discussing Instead of deluding yourself.



So we have a enormous force disbalance. Lousy state of iraq army. Doctrine, training.

However “thinker” here claims that just by giving half of what ukraine received…aka some 2000 anti-tank and 1000 stingers with 100 obsolete tanks and 80 modern artillery, that would have turned that entire war upside down with a coalition rout in 2 months.?!

Let alone take into account the sub-par performance arab armies often show even with superior weaponry. Ffs look at mosul vs isis.

So go ahead…dive into your details and tell us how 2000 peer antitank would have Iraq crush the coalition forces…. “Omg muh ummah so strong”. If only we had this or that…if only this didnt happen. If if if…

 

[K_Bin_W]

Makes me think of a pro-verb:

• It is ridiculous listening to lice coughing.

Ah there is another, "It gets one to know one" Eh!!! Now shoo and don't waste BW.

 

[Vergennes]

So basically in August,Russia only managed to advance something like few hundred meters from previously held positions and captured half of the village of Pisky and probably lost several BTGs in the process. @F-22Raptor

 

[gambit]

If Taliban got 1/10 of the support Ukraine is getting US would have left Afghanistan in 2 months. You don't know what you are talking about, ask some real military experts what would have happened if taliban had 1/10th of the advanced weapons Ukraine is getting, weapons like ATGM's, SAM's, Snipers etc
Iraq was attacked two times by full power of US and its many allies, Iraq had outdated Soviet equipment, if Iraq had received even half of support Ukraine is receiving with advanced weapons and intelligence, Iraq would have beaten US or atleast defended against the invasion.

So what you are speculating is that if Iraq of Desert Storm got 30 yrs worth of technological advancement to fight the US of Desert Storm, then Desert Storm would not have been so lopsided? So in order for Desert Storm to be a 'real' war, it has to be 1991 US vs 2022 Iraq? You guys do not see how intellectually distorted that is?

When I got orders to deploy to Desert Storm, our F-16s just finished transition over to the C/D digital models. It is not our fault that Soviet jets were shiddy compared to US. Neither is it our fault that our people were better trained. The predictions were that US and allies WOULD, not merely could, incur Vietnam War era casualties. We took the Iraqi military seriously from the Iran-Iraq War and planned accordingly. I used to be on the F-111E and that jet was of the same technological time as the Iraqi Air Force. What the world's military leaderships, especially the Soviet Union and China, saw was that Desert Storm was %75 people and %25 hardware. Why do you think the PLA re-format itself to the US model?

 

[F-22Raptor]

So basically in August,Russia only managed to advance something like few hundred meters from previously held positions and captured half of the village of Pisky and probably lost several BTGs in the process. @F-22Raptor

Russian offensive capability has been essentially destroyed. They haven’t moved in 2 months.

 

[Viet]

Yes, where did it say that Russia agrees to NATO expansion?

It doesn’t say explicitly, it states
Page 6:

…respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents.”

Page 12:

“The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so.”

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565364577117814784

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Defending Ukraine is essential for European security, very important for US security, that’s why Ukraine will get money and weapons as long as Ukraine needs it.

No one in the Europe and NATO is willing to fight the Russians by putting boots on the ground.

So the best option is to fund and support the Ukranians to fight the war with Russia.

 

[jhungary]

Says an american who can only invade poor weak countries like Afghanistan, iraq, libya lolz and wont dare go into Ukraine. That makes america a pxssy, only good to invad poor countries but cant go against a weak russia with WW2 weapons.

lol, isn't that's what Russia is doing now?

Dude, there are always two side of an argument, if Russia is that great, why aren't they doing Ukraine in any NATO territories?? Why Russia dare not to invade NATO?

But then what do I expect you people to understand the term of "Strategic Value". Maybe I am asking too much. The only different I see here is US and Co can easily subjugate weak country like Iraq and Afghanistan, while Russia have problem subduing a pesky Ukraine......

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565372183244951552

 

[jhungary]

What is the proof of Jelzin signing a deal for NATO expansion?

Actually, the famous "No Expansion to the East" with James Baker was a myth, Gorbachev himself said in an interview with Russian Beyond (Own by the same company that own RT) that there was never a deal from NATO to not expand Eastward when Gorbachev himself sign the deal with NATO on East Germany.

Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls

The first and last president of the Soviet Union spoke with RBTH about the past and how it should inform the present.

www.rbth.com

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

As for Yeltsin sign away the deal with NATO expansion. Here are a good explanation on the issue

NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard | National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously...

nsarchive.gwu.edu