7 ms·

Elaborate?

by brotoss 5y ago

Elaborate?

boringg 5y ago
Good that they are cracking down on ransomware gangs; bad that they are looming over an invasion of ukraine.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. They now have troops in places bordering Russia, like Poland. It's not really surprising the Russians have tooled-up. And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine). I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. Treaties signed by the USA, in particular, might as well be used toilet-paper (ask Iran).
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Wow, first time I ever got a maximum -4 downvote (maybe many more). Maybe it was because of rude remarks about toilet-paper. Well, hands up - it was phrased provocatively. Sorry.
  - boringg 5y ago
    I'm not making any opinion - I'm merely answering the question about what OP was referring to the confused question asker.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made. All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.
    - itchyjunk 5y ago
      Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? I suppose treaties aren't really legal contracts but some type of metal legal contract where nations themselves are legal persons? Is there a list of treaty breach being enforced in some way? I suppose sanctions are how they generally do it, right?
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? No. It’s supposed to “enforce” treaties signed under its auspices, but even that requires SC approval, which any member can veto.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        International treaties generally set out on their face what remedies there are for violations. The WTO is often the forum for resolving problems with trade treaties. Multilateral treaties are often formed under UN auspices, so that (e.g.) the IMO regulates mulilateral maritime agreements. But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over. There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.
    - eukgoekoko 5y ago
      > And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. taken from https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-...
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  - zhdc1 5y ago
    > The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. Is this what you're talking about? https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception... > However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later. Compare with https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia-a-nato-member/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia... > As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    So, is the 1994 security agreement about the withdraw of nuclear weapons from Ukraine and signed by Russia toilet-paper as well? They are the only signatary that actually violated Ukraine's territorial integrity.
  - daanlo 5y ago
    As far as I am aware there is no signed international agreement that NATO would not extend into Eastern European countries like Ukraine. This is wishful thinking on behalf of Putin and an attempt to put themselves into a victim role. If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.
    - ener 5y ago
      NATO bases appeared at Russia's borders way before any invasion happened. In fact, all NATO furtherance's were done at the time when Russia was in its weakest state, democratic and still trying to play nice to the West.
  - openasocket 5y ago
    It should be made clear that the promise not to extend the boundaries of NATO was an informal understanding, it was not written into any treaty, and was made by someone without the authority to ensure that would actually happen. JCPOA aside, there's plenty of treaty-breaking that Russia has engaged in. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine wound up with a large supply of nuclear weapons on its soil, making it the country with the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons to Russia, on the condition that Russia not violate its territorial sovereignty, in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of that agreement (maybe Ukraine will ask for its nukes back). There's also the INF treaty, which the Russians violated with variants of their Iskander missile system. Granted, the Trump administration decided to piss in the proverbial swimming pool rather than try to get Russia back into compliance, but Russia did genuinely start this. > And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine). To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting. > I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating. It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
  - julius_deane 5y ago
    > Russian troops are still in Russia except the ones that are not. ayyy, the gymnastics > I'm not defending... nah, you're excusing
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > nah, you're excusing You can put it that way, if you like ad-hominem attacks based on forged "quotes". I'm actually pretty angry with Russian military incursions into their neighbours, and I'm glad they withdrew quickly from Kazakhstan. But I think NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. It has no business operating in e.g. the Middle East. The West has acted provocatively, and it's no surprise if Russia is provoked.
      - julius_deane 5y ago
        are we still talking about the current time invasion of ukraine or are we going to what-about this thread?
eganist 5y ago
Rus: "We'll support you with your interests if you at the very least turn a blind eye to ours" That's my naive read, anyway.
- easy_rider_2137 5y ago
  Russia, not Rus. Rus and Russia are two totally different things.
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    Maybe OP is suggesting Putin wants to restore the medieval glory of Kievan Rus',
    - easy_rider_2137 5y ago
      That would be like Islandia resurrecting British Empire. Literally, well maybe actually Islandia has more right to do so than Russia have anything to do with Rus'.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    RUS is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_vehicle_registration_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_vehicle_registra... of Russia, I cannot see anything wrong with that. No idea what Rus might be.
    - eganist 5y ago
      In fairness, I should've contracted even further to the ISO 3166 code "RU" Vehicle codes are only slightly less clear than the ISO codes, but they're used in a surprising number of places, like international sports. Edit: Oh wait, I'm mis-speaking. Sports tend to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3, which includes RUS So yeah, I guess I don't feel bad.
    - madars 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
pluc 5y ago
Russia doesn't usually care much about its nationals hacking outside of its borders.

Elaborate?

boringg 5y ago

Good that they are cracking down on ransomware gangs; bad that they are looming over an invasion of ukraine.

denton-scratch 5y ago
The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. They now have troops in places bordering Russia, like Poland. It's not really surprising the Russians have tooled-up. And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine). I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. Treaties signed by the USA, in particular, might as well be used toilet-paper (ask Iran).
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Wow, first time I ever got a maximum -4 downvote (maybe many more). Maybe it was because of rude remarks about toilet-paper. Well, hands up - it was phrased provocatively. Sorry.
- boringg 5y ago
  I'm not making any opinion - I'm merely answering the question about what OP was referring to the confused question asker.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made. All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.
  - itchyjunk 5y ago
    Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? I suppose treaties aren't really legal contracts but some type of metal legal contract where nations themselves are legal persons? Is there a list of treaty breach being enforced in some way? I suppose sanctions are how they generally do it, right?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? No. It’s supposed to “enforce” treaties signed under its auspices, but even that requires SC approval, which any member can veto.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      International treaties generally set out on their face what remedies there are for violations. The WTO is often the forum for resolving problems with trade treaties. Multilateral treaties are often formed under UN auspices, so that (e.g.) the IMO regulates mulilateral maritime agreements. But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over. There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.
  - eukgoekoko 5y ago
    > And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. taken from https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-...
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
- zhdc1 5y ago
  > The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. Is this what you're talking about? https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception... > However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later. Compare with https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia-a-nato-member/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia... > As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  So, is the 1994 security agreement about the withdraw of nuclear weapons from Ukraine and signed by Russia toilet-paper as well? They are the only signatary that actually violated Ukraine's territorial integrity.
- daanlo 5y ago
  As far as I am aware there is no signed international agreement that NATO would not extend into Eastern European countries like Ukraine. This is wishful thinking on behalf of Putin and an attempt to put themselves into a victim role. If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.
  - ener 5y ago
    NATO bases appeared at Russia's borders way before any invasion happened. In fact, all NATO furtherance's were done at the time when Russia was in its weakest state, democratic and still trying to play nice to the West.
- openasocket 5y ago
  It should be made clear that the promise not to extend the boundaries of NATO was an informal understanding, it was not written into any treaty, and was made by someone without the authority to ensure that would actually happen. JCPOA aside, there's plenty of treaty-breaking that Russia has engaged in. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine wound up with a large supply of nuclear weapons on its soil, making it the country with the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons to Russia, on the condition that Russia not violate its territorial sovereignty, in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of that agreement (maybe Ukraine will ask for its nukes back). There's also the INF treaty, which the Russians violated with variants of their Iskander missile system. Granted, the Trump administration decided to piss in the proverbial swimming pool rather than try to get Russia back into compliance, but Russia did genuinely start this. > And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine). To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting. > I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating. It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
- julius_deane 5y ago
  > Russian troops are still in Russia except the ones that are not. ayyy, the gymnastics > I'm not defending... nah, you're excusing
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > nah, you're excusing You can put it that way, if you like ad-hominem attacks based on forged "quotes". I'm actually pretty angry with Russian military incursions into their neighbours, and I'm glad they withdrew quickly from Kazakhstan. But I think NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. It has no business operating in e.g. the Middle East. The West has acted provocatively, and it's no surprise if Russia is provoked.
    - julius_deane 5y ago
      are we still talking about the current time invasion of ukraine or are we going to what-about this thread?

eganist 5y ago

Rus: "We'll support you with your interests if you at the very least turn a blind eye to ours" That's my naive read, anyway.

easy_rider_2137 5y ago
Russia, not Rus. Rus and Russia are two totally different things.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Maybe OP is suggesting Putin wants to restore the medieval glory of Kievan Rus',
  - easy_rider_2137 5y ago
    That would be like Islandia resurrecting British Empire. Literally, well maybe actually Islandia has more right to do so than Russia have anything to do with Rus'.
- usr1106 5y ago
  RUS is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_vehicle_registration_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_vehicle_registra... of Russia, I cannot see anything wrong with that. No idea what Rus might be.
  - eganist 5y ago
    In fairness, I should've contracted even further to the ISO 3166 code "RU" Vehicle codes are only slightly less clear than the ISO codes, but they're used in a surprising number of places, like international sports. Edit: Oh wait, I'm mis-speaking. Sports tend to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3, which includes RUS So yeah, I guess I don't feel bad.
  - madars 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

pluc 5y ago

Russia doesn't usually care much about its nationals hacking outside of its borders.