Russia Ukraine: Moscow lists demands for defusing Ukraine tensions

[Alf]

looking through history . Has Russia ever invaded any where ?????
they only seem to defend there-self against the west and invaders.

Careful.. not knowing the difference between "there" and "their" is a sure give away sign of your KGB roots.

[Nighthawke]

In that case half this ruddy forum has KGB roots!

[NAM Updater]

looking through history . Has Russia ever invaded any where ?????
they only seem to defend there-self against the west and invaders.

In 1968 the USSR (Russia) invaded Czechoslovakia & in 1979 Afghanistan - do they count?

[quid21]

looking through history . Has Russia ever invaded any where ?????
they only seem to defend there-self against the west and invaders.

In 1968 the USSR (Russia) invaded Czechoslovakia & in 1979 Afghanistan - do they count?

Not to mention the already mentioned invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014.

[Thunder]

you can add Poland, Finland, China, Georgia, to the list as well.

[cat1]

what a lovely quiet history to this little, peaceful country...

[binbrook87]

Don't forget Hungary in 1956 ...

[TonyO]

looking through history . Has Russia ever invaded any where ?????
they only seem to defend there-self against the west and invaders.

Afghanistan, Hungary and Czech Republic spring to mind, not to mention the numerous invasions during World War II, and that's just the Soviet era.

More recently, Georgia, and Donbas, Ukraine.

[Rugbyref]

looking through history . Has Russia ever invaded any where ?????
they only seem to defend there-self against the west and invaders.

Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. Or do Soviet history books ignore those?

[Sparts99]

Lots of people here are confusing the nation state of Russia with the USSR which was driven by communist ideology in a paranoid dictatorship. Immediately after the Russian revolution the UK and US tried to topple the regime, the seeds were planted then. Putin's a real menace, no doubt in my mind about that but while the Russia of today grew out of the failed USSR it is a different thing altogether.

[Supra]

да,да, Согласен с Вами, товарищ Sparts99.... Whoops! Meant to say ' Yes,Yes. I agree with you Comrade Sparts99'

[steamy]

looking through history . Has Russia ever invaded any where ?????
they only seem to defend there-self against the west and invaders.

Afghanistan, Hungary and Czech Republic spring to mind, not to mention the numerous invasions during World War II, and that's just the Soviet era.

More recently, Georgia, and Donbas, Ukraine.

you can add Poland, Finland, China, Georgia, to the list as well.

They were just taking back what was theirs that they gave away by treaty

MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile which the Ukranians also had. The Multinational team investigaing it were all pro western / NATO countries. Think it's obvious what the out come will be...

you're last sentence can be taken from either side.... care to share your sources that it was a Ukranian BUK?


Also, welcome new members.... hopefully you can contribute to the heads up section when Russian bomber sorties are up and heading for Europe, instead of us waiting on QRA topics.

[Molitor5901]

What bothers me, is that Russia has issued a list of demands, several of which are not going to be accepted by Ukraine or NATO...
In 1914, Austria Hungary issued a list of demands to Serbia, after Sarajevo, which they knew were not going to be accepted...we know the rest...

[Northsky]

Putin and FSB people never liked the end of "the Cold War" Which is why they continued to spy and plant sleeper agents. It looked for a while as if they would become more democratic . But like China its a kind of authoritarianism but with money.

[Sparts99]

Putin and FSB people never liked the end of "the Cold War" Which is why they continued to spy and plant sleeper agents. It looked for a while as if they would become more democratic . But like China its a kind of authoritarianism but with money.

Exactly what I was trying to say above.

[Vulcanone]

Wow phantomrob...

Suggest you ask Santa for a book on Global conflicts for the last 1000 years. Either that or visit your local library.

Alternative is get a job in military publishing.... And you really would have nightmares listening to some of the Combat and Survival story writers I chatted with...

[warthog81]

Moscow was promised by the US, UK, West Germany and NATO itself that NATO would not expand eastwards if Moscow withdrew its forces. Here are some interesting articles which talk about it.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ldnt-23629

"Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner."

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/promi ... matters-2/

"Part of the persisting confusion stems from that fact that what was said at the time sounds pretty clear in retrospect. On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher declared, “What NATO must do is state unequivocally that whatever happens in the Warsaw Pact, there will be no expansion of NATO territory eastwards, that is to say, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” In February, Baker then told Gorbachev in Moscow that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev then stated “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” Baker replied, “I agree.”

"Indeed, as late as March 1991, the British were reassuring Gorbachev that they could not foresee circumstances under which NATO might expand into Eastern and Central Europe. As former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union recounted in March 5, 1991, Rodric Braithwaite, both British foreign minister Douglas Hurd and British Prime Minister John Major told the Soviet that NATO would not expand eastwards."


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion."

"Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open.

After discussing the issue with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on February 24-25, the U.S. gave the former East Germany “special military status,” limiting what NATO forces could be stationed there in deference to the Soviet Union. Beyond that, however, talk of proscribing NATO’s reach dropped out of the diplomatic conversation. Indeed, by March 1990, State Department officials were advising Baker that NATO could help organize Eastern Europe in the U.S. orbit; by October, U.S. policymakers were contemplating whether and when (as a National Security Council memo put it) to “signal to the new democracies of Eastern Europe NATO’s readiness to contemplate their future membership.”

At the same time, however, it appears the Americans still were trying to convince the Russians that their concerns about NATO would be respected. Baker pledged in Moscow on May 18, 1990, that the United States would cooperate with the Soviet Union in the “development of a new Europe.” And in June, per talking points prepared by the NSC, Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.”

[mudhen15]

Poland 1939, Crimea 2014,Finland 1940,Hungary 1956,Czecholovakia 1968,Afghanistan 1979(asked to invade by the Afghan Government)

[steamy]

great insight!

I always wondered though, if Russia were that annoyed, why did they let their last garrison leave Germany in 1994?
I suppose economics meant it wasn't feasible, and Yeltsin wasn't strong enough.

[Tally-ho]

Moscow was promised by the US, UK, West Germany and NATO itself that NATO would not expand eastwards if Moscow withdrew its forces. Here are some interesting articles which talk about it.

In each of your three headlined paragraphs you mention the Soviet Union, or if I may use the full terminology, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The USSR ceased to exist when most of those Republics made the choice to no longer be part of the USSR.

Glasnost, Perestroika and the end of the Cold War brought that about.

Now here's the thing - whatever promises was made to the former USSR came to an end when the USSR collapsed in a pile of rubble, when 'people power' otherwise known as democracy, made its voice heard. Modern day Russia is not a new version of the USSR, it is just another country. Russia cannot dictate to its neighbours how to live their lives.

Your submission that the West or NATO owes Russia certain guarantees is incorrect and based on wishful thinking.