7 ms·

There is a lot missing from this account such as: The US promising not to expand NATO beyond Germany. The Maidan coup in 2014. The Minsk agreement where Kiev ag

There is a lot missing from this account such as: The US promising not to expand NATO beyond Germany. The Maidan coup in 2014. The Minsk agreement where Kiev agreed to stop bombing the Donbas but has still killed over 14K people doing so. The Ruble is strong and Russia's GDP will grow more than the UK this year.

ROTMetro 4y ago
21 people were killed in the Donbas in the year prior to Russia starting a war of aggression, mostly by mines.
jakeinspace 4y ago
The US made no such official promise. Apparently not even unofficially, Gorbachev denied that Clinton ever made that personal promise.
- kornhole 4y ago
  They were informal assurances. Jeffrey Sachs was there at the time. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/gafr872ellaha3wpjhpfylc6lcx68j https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/gafr872ellaha3w...
- anlsh 4y ago
  You're wrong. There was indeed never anything "official", but high-level diplomats (such as the US Secretary of State) did promise as much behind closed doors. See https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
  - joshsyn 4y ago
    [dead]
hndamien 4y ago
Don't forget the US breach of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Defensive Alliance NATO (and Clinton) deposing Ghadafi after he got rid of his nukes.
- thephyber 4y ago
  “Deposing Ghadafi after he got rid of his nukes” (1) Gaddafi never had nukes, only nuclear material, technology, and some parts of the tech pipeline. (2) Gaddafi never abided by the 2003 treaty and retained some of the nuclear material and equipment (which he had already agreed to export) as of 2009. Even after the 2011 revolution, the IAEA confirmed that Libya still had yellow cake after the revolution (3) NATO waited until after Libya was already in civil war to engage. I’m not saying NATO was in the right, but you are wrong on most of the facts and Gaddafi didn’t abide by the treaty, so I’m not sure why you would cite that as an example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
  - hndamien 4y ago
    The majority of my statement is accurate, from your own link. 1) Mostly wrong by turn of phrase? Please. "Got rid of his nukes" or "Got rid of his nuclear program that was 3 - 7 years from successfully building a nuclear weapon." "Gaddafi increasingly sought to normalize relations with the United States, initially focusing on the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Libya." 2) Eventually Gaddafi grew disillusioned with the things that the West offered Libya.[6] He considered it too small of a reward for Libya for giving up its nuclear weapons program.[6] Gaddafi was also dissatisfied at the United States' slowness in normalizing relations with Libya and in pressuring Israel to denuclearize.[6] According to Gaddafi's son Saif, this was one of the main reasons why Gaddafi temporarily suspended shipping Libya's enriched uranium abroad in 2009 like he promised he would in 2003.[6] Gaddafi wanted to use the remains of his nuclear weapons program to gain more leverage.[6] 3)NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya (which led to Gaddafi's overthrow and killing at the hands of anti-Gaddafi forces) would make Iran, North Korea, and possibly other countries more reluctant to give up their nuclear programs and/or nuclear weapons due to the risk of being weakened and/or double-crossed as a result.[6][15]. The "civil war" was fomented by clandestine CIA action providing arms to Libyan opposition as reported by the Washngton Post. "During the early phases of the Libyan air strike offensive, paramilitary operatives assisted in the recovery of a U.S. Air Force pilot who had crashed due to mechanical problems.[8] There was also speculation in The Washington Post that President Obama issued a covert action finding in March 2011 that authorized the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and support to the Libyan opposition.[9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Libya
lispm 4y ago
> The Ruble is strong and Russia's GDP will grow more than the UK this year. Not. The economic numbers of Russia are now manipulated by Russia and the West. The value of the ruble in many markets is nearing zero, since Russia can't buy much for it, because it has lost access to those markets. It lacks supplies and needs to invest a lot of money into a war economy. Russia now has a war economy - the big and rising economic activity is running a large war and to dampen the effects of sanctions against Russia.
- kornhole 4y ago
  What do you mean the Ruble is near zero? All charts I see show it higher against the dollar compared to a year ago. https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/fx/RUBUSD/historical-prices https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/fx/RUBUSD/historical-...
  - thephyber 4y ago
    I’m guessing that ForEx ratio is highly dependent upon where you are when you trade it and I would wager the volumes are low or non-existent in any country that has sanctioned Russian exports like oil, gas, and metals.
    - kornhole 4y ago
      After the US seized Russian assets Russia started selling oil in Rubles. This forces its customers such as India and China to first buy Rubles usually with dollars.
      - thephyber 4y ago
        You just supported my points.
thephyber 4y ago
Putin’s statement the night of the invasion didn’t blame the west, rather Ukraine. And you conveniently ignore the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which US, RU, UK (among others) promise to militarily defend UA in exchange for UA giving up their nuclear weapons post-USSR. What good is a (non-existent) agreement for NATO to not expand if a very much real agreement to defend UA won’t be upheld? Also worth pointing out that there’s a decent change Ukrainians we’re just tired of being chained to a corrupt neighbor whose corruption also caused massive UA government+corporate corruption.

ROTMetro 4y ago

21 people were killed in the Donbas in the year prior to Russia starting a war of aggression, mostly by mines.

jakeinspace 4y ago

The US made no such official promise. Apparently not even unofficially, Gorbachev denied that Clinton ever made that personal promise.

kornhole 4y ago
They were informal assurances. Jeffrey Sachs was there at the time. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/gafr872ellaha3wpjhpfylc6lcx68j https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/gafr872ellaha3w...
anlsh 4y ago
You're wrong. There was indeed never anything "official", but high-level diplomats (such as the US Secretary of State) did promise as much behind closed doors. See https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
- joshsyn 4y ago
  [dead]

hndamien 4y ago

Don't forget the US breach of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Defensive Alliance NATO (and Clinton) deposing Ghadafi after he got rid of his nukes.

thephyber 4y ago
“Deposing Ghadafi after he got rid of his nukes” (1) Gaddafi never had nukes, only nuclear material, technology, and some parts of the tech pipeline. (2) Gaddafi never abided by the 2003 treaty and retained some of the nuclear material and equipment (which he had already agreed to export) as of 2009. Even after the 2011 revolution, the IAEA confirmed that Libya still had yellow cake after the revolution (3) NATO waited until after Libya was already in civil war to engage. I’m not saying NATO was in the right, but you are wrong on most of the facts and Gaddafi didn’t abide by the treaty, so I’m not sure why you would cite that as an example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
- hndamien 4y ago
  The majority of my statement is accurate, from your own link. 1) Mostly wrong by turn of phrase? Please. "Got rid of his nukes" or "Got rid of his nuclear program that was 3 - 7 years from successfully building a nuclear weapon." "Gaddafi increasingly sought to normalize relations with the United States, initially focusing on the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Libya." 2) Eventually Gaddafi grew disillusioned with the things that the West offered Libya.[6] He considered it too small of a reward for Libya for giving up its nuclear weapons program.[6] Gaddafi was also dissatisfied at the United States' slowness in normalizing relations with Libya and in pressuring Israel to denuclearize.[6] According to Gaddafi's son Saif, this was one of the main reasons why Gaddafi temporarily suspended shipping Libya's enriched uranium abroad in 2009 like he promised he would in 2003.[6] Gaddafi wanted to use the remains of his nuclear weapons program to gain more leverage.[6] 3)NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya (which led to Gaddafi's overthrow and killing at the hands of anti-Gaddafi forces) would make Iran, North Korea, and possibly other countries more reluctant to give up their nuclear programs and/or nuclear weapons due to the risk of being weakened and/or double-crossed as a result.[6][15]. The "civil war" was fomented by clandestine CIA action providing arms to Libyan opposition as reported by the Washngton Post. "During the early phases of the Libyan air strike offensive, paramilitary operatives assisted in the recovery of a U.S. Air Force pilot who had crashed due to mechanical problems.[8] There was also speculation in The Washington Post that President Obama issued a covert action finding in March 2011 that authorized the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and support to the Libyan opposition.[9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Libya

lispm 4y ago

> The Ruble is strong and Russia's GDP will grow more than the UK this year. Not. The economic numbers of Russia are now manipulated by Russia and the West. The value of the ruble in many markets is nearing zero, since Russia can't buy much for it, because it has lost access to those markets. It lacks supplies and needs to invest a lot of money into a war economy. Russia now has a war economy - the big and rising economic activity is running a large war and to dampen the effects of sanctions against Russia.

kornhole 4y ago
What do you mean the Ruble is near zero? All charts I see show it higher against the dollar compared to a year ago. https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/fx/RUBUSD/historical-prices https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/fx/RUBUSD/historical-...
- thephyber 4y ago
  I’m guessing that ForEx ratio is highly dependent upon where you are when you trade it and I would wager the volumes are low or non-existent in any country that has sanctioned Russian exports like oil, gas, and metals.
  - kornhole 4y ago
    After the US seized Russian assets Russia started selling oil in Rubles. This forces its customers such as India and China to first buy Rubles usually with dollars.
    - thephyber 4y ago
      You just supported my points.

thephyber 4y ago

Putin’s statement the night of the invasion didn’t blame the west, rather Ukraine. And you conveniently ignore the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which US, RU, UK (among others) promise to militarily defend UA in exchange for UA giving up their nuclear weapons post-USSR. What good is a (non-existent) agreement for NATO to not expand if a very much real agreement to defend UA won’t be upheld? Also worth pointing out that there’s a decent change Ukrainians we’re just tired of being chained to a corrupt neighbor whose corruption also caused massive UA government+corporate corruption.