Civil war in Ukraine

[Lonewolf]

CBC news reported Canada had 200 military trainers in the Ukraine. NATO (NATTO?) soldiers are already in the Ukraine.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-possible-scenarios-1.6295949

U back old friend , welcome

 

[asianobserve]

Training Civilians, Ukraine Nurtures a Resistance in Waiting

Training Civilians, Ukraine Nurtures a Resistance in Waiting

Eastern European nations have drawn a lesson from America’s wars of the last decades: Insurgency works. Ukraine’s training of volunteers has become a factor in the standoff with Russia.

www.nytimes.com

 

[asianobserve]

Russia announces withdrawal of 10,000 troops after drills near Ukraine

Russia announces withdrawal of 10,000 troops after drills near Ukraine

Russia announced Saturday that more than 10,000 troops had finished month-long drills near Ukraine, amid Western accusations that Moscow was plotting an invasion of its ex-Soviet neighbour.

www.google.com

 

[KurtisBrian]

U back old friend , welcome

 

[pipebomb]

I repeat: We were a neutral state in 2014, but that did not stop Putin from attacking us.

And all I am asking is joining NATO the only way of deterring a Russian invasion.

 

[Love Charger]

Welcome.eback comraDe.

 

[Shashank Nayak]

Now that's not true. If you only look at the things you want to look at, you can reach any conclusion you like. Not so after viewing things in totality.

Start with WW1 and how Britain laid the foundation for a war to take place in order to destroy Germany.

Between 1907 and 1909 Britain invited Germany twice to agree to a general curtailment of construction, provided that Britain was assured numerical superiority in this respect. Twice Germany refused. Wilhelm II further said:

"We simply are Central Europe and it is quite natural that other and smaller nations tend toward us. To this the British object because it absolutely knocks to pieces their theory of the Balance of Power, i.e. their desire to play off one European power against another at their own pleasure, and because it will lead to the establishment of a united continent."

The premise was, from Germany’s angle, correct, but the inference erroneous: again, Britain had been fatally underestimated. Germany counterproposed twice in 1909: first, in April, the diplomats of the Wilhelmstrasse suggested that the parties seal a naval convention, provided that Britain acquiesced to a ‘benevolent neutrality’ in case of Germany’s engagement in a continental war.

In other words, the Reich demanded that Britain play the role of the passive spectator; second, in December, the Germans offered anew to trade a limitation of tonnage for British neutrality and the agreement on fixed naval ratios. Twice Britain refused. And what was more, she resolved to scale up production so as to assemble two Dreadnoughts, Britain’s new, much perfected destroyers, for every German warship.

One last overture was made to Russia in 1911 during the parleys at Potsdam, which had been officially scheduled to deal with the penetration of German capital in the Middle East, and lasted several months: Germany declared herself willing to rein in Austria’s intrigues in Eastern Europe if Russia proved amenable to withdrawing her support from an eventual hostile policy instigated by Britain against Germany.

The Kaiser obtained a stretch of railway in Mesopotamia – the other, broken, tracts of Germany’s long sighted and formidable blueprint were bartered away to Britain and France – but no guarantee of neutrality on the part of Russia.

In 1912 Britain signed a secret naval convention with France, and the latter did likewise with Russia. Secretly, unbeknownst to the Houses and most ministers, Lord Grey of the Foreign Office exchanged with Cambon, the French ambassador in London, a series of letters in which, on the basis of classified military conventions drafted by the General Staff of both countries, Britain, in case of war, pledged intervention on the side of France.

In these days, the strategists of Germany’s General Staff were at work rehearsing and fine-tuning the Schlieffen Plan. This plan had been drawn up in 1905, and, after 1906, modified by Schlieffen’s successor, the younger Helmuth von Moltke, the nephew of the victorious general at Sedan in 1871.

The plan aimed at settling the war with a single, potent, blow. Schlieffen assumed that Germany would be engaged on two fronts: France to the West, Russia to the East; the former having to be annihilated before the latter could mobilize. Any fighting of extended duration, which would have predictably drained the embattled and resource-poor Reich, was to be avoided, and replaced instead by a stubborn resistance in the East, and a stationary contingent facing France, to make room for the pearl of the plan: ‘a great wheeling wing going through Holland and Belgium and coming down on the flank and rear of the French armies by passing west of Paris.’

The British had intelligence of the plan, down to its minute details: ‘unbeknownst to anyone in Berlin, [the Schlieffen Plan] had come into the possession of the French army in 1906, thanks to a traitor bought for sixty
thousand francs.’ Indeed, Belgium was going to provide the cornerstone of Britain’s diplomatic pretext for the commencement of hostilities.

Britain counted on Germany’s inevitable violation of Belgian neutrality as soon as Moltke was to launch the Schlieffen blitzkrieg. Already, in 1906, the British General Staff, with the full logistical, and secret, cooperation of its Belgian counterpart, was involved in simulated maneuvers across Belgium featuring the deployment of a British Expeditionary Force on the continent– which, indeed, would have been regularly fielded in August 1914 under the command of Sir John French to aid the French armies against Germany’s Parisian offensive. The public was never informed of such plans.

By the spring of 1914 the Entente was ready to ambush the Germans. On May 29, 1914, Edward House, President Wilson’s chief advisor from Texas and America’s éminence grise behind the Anglo-American imperial covenant, reported from Europe: ‘Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria’.

After Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered, on July 6, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey, informed the German ambassador that Russia was yet unprepared to intervene, and that Britain had no binding obligation vis-à-vis either Russia or France: a deliberate lie.

Two days later, the British Foreign Minister assured the Russians that, according to ‘very reliable military sources’, the Germans were rapidly conveying divisions to the East, and that the situation looked upon the Reich with disfavor: an even bigger lie.

All such deceiving signals issued by the Foreign Office in cross-directions behind closed doors were accompanied in Britain by a public show of phony attempts at mediation in the name of peace, initiated with an eye to deceiving the multitudes. Britain had always been careful to spin the international tangle so as to drive the opponent in the position of the assailant, and reserve for herself the role of the peace-loving defender. This was a psychological artifice tailored for mass seduction, and the Germans had no knowledge or understanding of such tricks.

Eventually, after war between France, Germany and Russia had broken out, Britain came full circle: knowing that Moltke was ready to thrust Ludendorff’s fusiliers through Belgium, the British government solemnly declared that it could not possibly tolerate the violation of Belgium’s neutrality; it then professed its unconditional adherence to peace, and, shameless, assured the public that it had signed no secret compacts with either France or Russia.

Just like that, the web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly and became the "aggressors of WW1".

The same goes for WW2 as well, which I'll keep for another post.

Spinning a conspiracy theory is very seductive, as if every twist and turn of WW1 was decided upon by the godly Anglo-Saxon race.. Yes, current literature sheds more light that Germany was not the only one with aggressive intent.. But, thats what all powers do, portray themselves as defenders.. Even the Nazis tried to justify their invasion of Poland, saying that the Poles attacked first.

But, Germany's fascination with capture of France, and the Schlieffen Plan of attack on France was not a secret.. although Moltke's refinements would have been.. If everything was decided upon by Anglos, then why was Russia such a damp squib in WW1, when they were defeated so miserably in Battle of Tannenberg, against a small part of German forces.. Also, when WW1 broke out, the British Expeditionary forces were quite small in size, with size of just six divisions..

 

[Shashank Nayak]

CBC news reported Canada had 200 military trainers in the Ukraine. NATO (NATTO?) soldiers are already in the Ukraine.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-possible-scenarios-1.6295949

These western military instructors will be the first ones to run out of Ukraine, once Russia launches a full scale attack.. They are fair weather girlfriends..

 

[Shashank Nayak]

And all I am asking is joining NATO the only way of deterring a Russian invasion.

The only way to make America behave, and act with restraint, is to force the US to deploy tens of thousands of American soldiers on the contact line, so that US soldiers return in body bags in huge numbers, if conflict breaks out.. ( like in the old days of cold war ).. As long as it is Ukrainians or Georgians doing the dying, the American fa*s will always try and Expand their empire..
Russia has to pose a credible threat of invasion of Baltic states.. forcing a huge American deployment, to preserve their credibility

 

[KurtisBrian]

Welcome.eback comraDe.

thank you.

 

[Love Charger]

thank you.

It must be cold In Canada , hope you survive it.

 

[KurtisBrian]

These western military instructors will be the first ones to run out of Ukraine, once Russia launches a full scale attack.. They are fair weather girlfriends..

yes, the article says Canadian soldiers won't fight. But who says they are running? You are Hindu Indian? Then you and your people are amongst the best in knowing there are alternatives to fighting. So said Obi Wan.

 

[Akim]

And all I am asking is joining NATO the only way of deterring a Russian invasion.

I am not a NATO supporter. But not the antagonist either. For me, Russia is an enemy. However, NATO is not to my liking. It lost its teeth long ago. But many consider joining the right step.
The right step would be to respect us (the military), and not make them "eat pasture" for 22 years. In this case, Russia did not dare to annex Crimea.

Test of a new module to replace the Strela-10 air defense system.

 

[blackjack]

Ukraine reveals change to military service for women — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

Women in a range of professions, up to 60 years old, will have to register for the draft.

 

[asianobserve]

Commentary: Beijing will draw conclusions from Washington’s reaction to Russia on Ukraine

Commentary: Beijing will draw conclusions from Washington’s reaction to Russia on Ukraine

Ukraine is not Taiwan, but Russia’s actions, and more importantly Washington’s response, may hold lessons for East Asia, says Christian Le Miere.

www.channelnewsasia.com

The other factor in Ukraine...

 

[blackjack]

I guess I know why Ukraine is being very greedy with assistance from west. Poorest Countries in Europe 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)

 

[Flash12]

Wait what is the problem with Poland,romania,hungary, slovakia, Slovenia joining NATO. They don't have border with main land russia. Or am i missing something ?

The problem is that west politicians assured that NATO would not advance even an inch to east.

 

[Flash12]

Putin’s first PM says neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin were promised that NATO would not enlarge

He is one of the leaders of the opposition to Putin and a pro-Western puppet. Which can easily lie in accordance with the current Western position.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

 

[Flash12]

In 2009, in an interview for DW, Gorbachev said that there was such a promise, in 2014 he also said that there was no such promise. I am inclined to believe the second option more, because the politicians of the countries where the power to be replaced cannot do anything verbally.
We look further. If it were not for the small Baltic countries, under the NATO umbrella, modern Russia would have swallowed them and would not even have noticed them.

This actor, who starred in a advertisement of pizza, was more important to be liked in the West more than to defend the interests of his own country. That is why he is more popular in the West than in his own country.

 

[KurtisBrian]

The problem is that west politicians assured that NATO would not advance even an inch to east.

Russians believed the word/written word of a certain people. Are all people worthy of equal amounts of trust?
Every heard of the movie Kingdom of Heaven? main character is Balian of Ibelin. you can read about him on wikipedia. Wikipedia says Balian, in return for being allowed to return to Jerusalem, gave an oath to Saladin that he would no longer take up arms against Saladin. Once in Jerusalem a priest, named Eraclius, absolved Balian of his oath. Balian fought against Saladin. Seems some people believe you can have a priest make your word/oath worthless. Who can you trust?