Comments (93)
Login to comment or vote
kowtow
‘and left Putin no choice but to invade.’
What rot .
We always have choices .
He chose war . And is an evil man for so doing .
David Garrett
kowtow: He is an evil man full stop. He resorts to what was traditionally known as “the woman’s method” of killing people – with poison. His victims include a former president of Ukraine, and a mother and daughter living in England. Why on earth would Zelensky or any other Ukrainian poli trust him any further than they could spit?
Ross Bayer
I have read the Article in full and note the comments of many.
The article is very selective in how information is created and while providing an alternative view to that of professor Sachs I find the many podcasts by the professor provide a much more compelling case.
I personally give more credence to Jeffrey Sachs than our own local manlosingtheplot
Honestly, I’m tired of reading reheated Russian propaganda on here. No, it’s not not selective, it’s an accurate retelling of what happened.
Everything in the article is verifiable, unlike the Russian propoganda whose purpose Jeffrey Sachs fulfils every time it is repeated.
Ra Henare
Also Professor Mershiemer. Who doesn’t cherry pick and promote out of context quotes and ASUMPTIONS!!!
Nothing wrong with Roger having an opinion. Unfortunately, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one!!!!!
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
David Garrett
I do not believe the claim that Russia would be under any greater threat than it is now even if Ukraine became part of NATO. The reason is simple geography and logistics.
The US already has nuclear weapons in Germany and Turkey. Someone with greater knowledge than me can tell us how much faster nukes from Ukraine – assuming it was ever considered prudent to put them there – would reach Russia as opposed to those from Germany and Turkey. I suspect the answer is a matter of a few minutes.
Second, this supposed threat from NATO is a mirage; to the best of my knowledge neither NATO, nor any of its member states, has ever invaded any European country since it was formed in 1949.
Russia on the other hand has recent “form”; invading Georgia, and later annexing the Crimea from Ukraine. If past performance is any measure, NATO members have much more reason to fear aggression from Russia than vice versa,
littleboylost
There may be some residents of Belgrade that you should talk too before stating NATO has never been an aggressor
Bevan
You just going to flat out ignore what the Serbians were doing specifically and what was happening in the area generally before NATO got involved?
kowtow
Seriously , if bad behaviour was the catalyst for NATO bombing other nations then most of Africa would be in even worse shape than it is now .
None of these ‘interventions” are done for genuinely humanitarian reasons or even the excuses put up by the likes of Putin for his gobbling up Ukraine piecemeal and indeed other Caucasus invasions.
It’s always about domestic politics . Whether it’s a distraction from the stains on an intern’s dress , a boost in polling , pure megalomania or trying to get into the Big Boys good books .( Blair with Bush , Iraqi wmd)
Britain going to war with Germany in ’14 was never about small nations’ rights and nor was ’39 about democracy or Poland.
It was about fight them now while we’ve allies or we’ll face them alone later.emmess
littleboylost: Yes
Master Mariner
Ok Then, What about Libya ?
the deity formerly known as nigel6888
Yes, that was a total clusterfuck, US ambassador raped and dragged through the streets, Libya destroyed, Refugees everywhere, and the islamic slave markets reopened.
All so that Hilary Clinton could show what a hard ass she was.
David Garrett
Littleboy: You mean the same Belgrade which is the capital of Serbia, a country which has been involved in Balkan wars for centuries, and was the major aggressor in the last lot of Balkan wars in the 1990’s?
Actually it’s been almost 30 years – must be time for the Serbians to start or provoke another one.
Frederick
Good points DG.
I was recently in Belgrade and noticed the damaged buildings still remaining from the NATO bombings. The official line is that they are “a reminder of the evils of war” but Serbians I spoke to were more inclined to suggest that they were a reminder of the evils of NATO and a totally unjustified bombing.
I chose for safety reasons not to argue and point out that this was a response to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. Serbians are unwavering in their perspective of the conflict and still see Kosovo as a Serbian province.Deane Jessep
Are you aware that the one of the largest bipartisan protests (as a percentage of population) has been running in Serbia for 4+ months. It hit 800k people on the streets of Belgrade last weekend.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1901020108912243010?s=463 weeks old, but this excellent video will bring you up to speed if you haven’t been following:
https://youtu.be/3ZyVr0CCoKA?si=nixmciYrTKw8WvUs
Jethrod
In the 1950’s Britain always said they had a 4 minute warning of a nuclear attack. This was enough to get their Vulcan, Valiants and Victors into the air. The Lancasters took a bit longer.
So Ukraine to Moscow would be in a flash, time not nuclear.David Garrett
Jethrod: Yes, that’s obvious…but how many minutes less than missiles fired from Germany? One? Five?
Plus it would seem very unlikely that NATO would see stationing missiles in Ukraine to be something sensible. It is after all, a defensive alliance.
redqueen
DG, to provide a brief answer: the issue is more around interception. The complaints I’ve seen, from the Russian side, are that the closer air defence systems get to Russia, the more likely they are to stop Russian launches (which thus leads to either hypersonic missiles or more missiles). Thus, their argument is more to do with making their own nuclear arsenal less effective, rather than concern American missiles are getting closer.
NothingLeft
no interceptor missiles have ranges beyond about 150km. speed of 1st strike is increased, but Russia has missiles stationed more than 2000km from nearest Nato borders or US subs in arctic giving them at least 5-10 minutes before a first strike nuke could take them out. Missiles in Ukraine make no significant difference to that.
Missiles in Ukraine make no significant difference to MAD – Ukraine is similar distance to Moscow as Gulf of Finland
redqueen
@NothingLeft
I am not stating a factual, merely their stated position. Practically, the speed and capabilities of an ICBM, particularly if your launch area is anywhere in Russia, isn’t going to be picked off by a slightly closer SAM launcher. However, that is their purported reason, which is juxtaposed by DG’s question about why the Russians would care if an American nuclear missile gets closer to Russsia.
Paulus
Seeing this reminds me of time in the UK as a youngster when I saw at the Farnborough Airshow three V Bomber take off after each other –
What noise you could never forget and what a spectacle.
Warren Murray
Yes, Russia has “form”.
I’d go further; while Russia reneged on commitments in the Budapest Memorandum when it seized Crimea, I shudder to think what the alternative would be if Ukraine hadn’t given up the ex Soviet Union nuclear weapons it held.
PaulL
I suspect the alternative would have been that Ukraine said “we have nukes and we’re not afraid to use them” and Russia wouldn’t have invaded. But we can never know for sure.
snoup
Or only taken Crimea.
Ukraine would also have done Russia a favour by keeping its nukes.the deity formerly known as nigel6888
Ukraine never had operational control of the nukes, they were USSR nukes controlled from Moscow, and they were retrieved by Russia. So its all a bit moot.
Ukraine should never have been created, it was a mistake to make it a “republic” and a mistake to grant it “independence” at the break up of the Soviet Union. Eastern Ukraine had been Russian for centuries – note that the thing called the Crimean War was not between Ukraine, France and Britain…
BevanS
Russia had the “launch codes”, not Ukraine
Simon
GAE’s latest aggression is both Greenland & Yemen.
Also GAE just okay Israel killing of civilians.
This just in the last few weeks. But Putin!!
No NZ war against China. The sickness must end.
Bevan
No NZ war against China. The sickness must end.
Cool, just ask China to stop its aggression against its neighbours then.
David Garrett
FFS…who is suggesting NZ would or could ever be at war with China? That’s close to the most absurd geopolitical statement I have ever heard. The top of the list is an ignorant former colleague of mine in the oilfield who suggested Russia might have designs on NZ because of the Maui gas field.
gryfon
You’re blurring the increasingly-clear distinction between a Trump-led USA and the NATO countries actually in Europe, while also claiming that two wrongs make a right. This is a tough time, possibly the toughest For Europe since 1938, and it calls for clear principle-based communication, not trite slogans.
David Garrett
gryfon: Actually I think comparing now to 1938 is in fact a perfectly valid comparison. But rather than FDR in the White House, the present incumbent is a highly unpredictable clown who, at a minimum, suffers from Narcissistic personality disorder. And also unlike FDR, a man controls weapons capable of destroying the world
gryfon
Apologies David, I do agree with you. By ‘1938’ I was harking back to Neville Chamberlain’s hopelessly naïve Munich agreement with Adolf Hitler. After which, of course, he was advised by Churchill that “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Trump’s hubris and (ahem) ‘increasingly erratic behaviour’ stand now in place of Chamberlain’s foolishness.
I never thought in my life that I’d ever feel the way that the Kiwis of 1938 felt watching Mother England in particular sleepwalk into global war, and yet here we are….Ian Boag
I think the 12-odd months that Chamberlain got was a pretty important breathing space for UK rearmament.
the deity formerly known as nigel6888
GAE? while I am not completely up with my urban dictionary, it gives a definition which is probably not the one you intended?
I prefer GET – God Emperor Trump, if we must be picky.
Taieri
Ukraine was betrayed by Russia.
—————And now it’s being betrayed by the US.
kowtow
That’s debateable .
European “backers” like Britain and France ( and Biden or whoever was running the Oval Office) seemed to be happy to allow Ukr to fight on to the last Ukrainian , but never gave them enough to be able to seriously fuck the Russians .
Knowing of course if they did the war would widen to include NATO , which woud mean ww3 .
At least now that Biden is gone the European “backstop” ie the US has said enough , end this war .
So who is really betraying who here . At least the war will stop . Ukraine and Europe can now get their shit together and become so strong Putin will desist .
Or will Europe still prioritise net zero and continue to live in Lala land.
In Vino Veritas
Ukraine was betrayed by the US and the UK in 2014 when they did nothing with regard to Crimea. That would be Barry-O and Baron-C running the betrayal show then.
Henry Filth
As soon as those countries imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain found the cell door, NATO expansion was inevitable.
Romney
This amusing fiction ignores the murder and persecution the people of Eastern Ukraine endured and of course the violent US sponsored coup and all the rest of the Biden corruption in the region. But if it means the end of NATO as seems likely, perhaps it will all be worth it.
snoup
If it were only about the people of Eastern Ukraine, then that’s where Putin would have invaded in 2022 and not sent tanks rolling towards Kyiv. He wants the whole thing, all of Ukraine. He wants an empire.
The irony is, it’s the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east and south who have proportionally been most brutalised by Putin in the past 3 years.
NothingLeft
Putin paid operatives in ethnic Russian majority regions of Ukraine after his puppets were voted out to foment violent conflict to give him an excuse for invasion. It’s the standard millennia old play-book for hegemonic countries looking to subsume smaller neighbors.
These annexed regions have since been largely destroyed by Putin’s invasions – forcing the men into his army and death, while remaining peoples have been subject to brutal victimization by occupying Russian army with near zero morals (hundreds of thousands of documented war crimes in areas the Ukraine has managed to liberate), torture, rape, murder, and kidnapping of 10’s of thousands of children into Russia to god knows what fates.
Allan
The same civilian freedom fighters that managed to get a BUK missile and shoot down a civilian jet.
The missile launcher and systems then disappeared.
David Garrett
Romney: Which “violent US sponsored coup” was that ? Zelensky was preceded by a president who Putin tried to kill with dioxin. Do try to keep up.
Allan
With one myth openly debunked here the Putin puppets can only roll out the others.
The same old, tired, lies.
smttc
DG, Romney is referring to the ousting of Yanukovich during the Maidan Revolution of 2014.
Ra Henare
I think he might be referring to the “revolution”coup organised by The USA and supported by ANgela Merckle. Both documented involvements
Mobile Michael
Stop getting your news only from RT.
David Garrett
MM: What, pray is RT ??
Ghost
Russia Today, a news agency/mouth piece
Ross Bayer
Romney
At least there is one person with knowledge making comments thank and I agreeGroggy
[Mod – debate the issues not the person]
Phronesis
He references Mary Sarotte favourably who wrote the book on the subject and called it Not one Inch.
“The title of the book, Not One Inch, refers to James Baker’s famous statement to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not an inch” to the east. The analysis relies on extensive sources, including over 100 interviews and primary documents and records of contacts between the White House and the Kremlin. Many of the sources she used had previously been classified.”
Bush didn’t agree to limits on the expansion of NATO but it was very clear that Russia always wanted such limits. During the mid-90’s Russia simply wasn’t in a position to force NATO to agree.
Mike
Russia is still in no position to dictate the defensive military arrangement of the European democracies.
Paulus
No, not correct the EU Countries will hold a
Grand Commttee meetings and then several others all round Europe.
Conclusion, not me Mister – I have no money.
Allan
Nope, more myths and lies.
Look at the time-line.
Those discussions were about German reunification.
At the time they occurred the Warsaw Pact was still a military entity and those nations still part of the USSR.
Are you suggesting that Bush et al had the ability to see into the future and predict the break-up of the USSR?
Ehlana
From a letter to the Herald this morning: “It would make a lot of sense for NZ to pull out of Nato. ”
Should be all the easier given that we never joined.
David Garrett
Ehlana: The former Journal of Record would never have published such an ignorant missive.
Ghost
Not a member, just a partner
David Garrett
Ghost: not a partner either…perhaps “a friendly nation”.
Ghost
Cooperation on shared security challenges is an important feature of New Zealand’s engagement with NATO. New Zealand formalised its cooperation with NATO in 2012 with our Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP). In 2024, New Zealand and NATO updated their partnership framework, the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP). The ITPP sets out goals in cooperation and responds to the changing global strategic landscape.
New Zealand also engages with NATO as one of its partners in the Indo-Pacific, along with Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Since 2022 New Zealand Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, and their counterparts from Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea, have been invited to attend annual meetings with the NATO allies. This increased engagement reflects the increasingly global nature of today’s most pressing security challenges.
David Garrett
ghost: I stand corrected. I didn’t know we had any formal relationship with NATO…I guess I should have, given that I know about five eyes.
Paulus
Do we not currently have Military Representatives in Eur0pe at these meetings ?
Henry Filth
It was considered applying for membership in the 1950s – I think the initial suggestion was made by the UK.
Odd thing, this history. . .
Mike
Do you mean SEATO?
Henry Filth
No, I mean NATO. SEATO was a completely different beast.
Grunter
If China and Russia set up a military agreement in Latin America, positioned missiles in say, Mexico, would the USA react?
All the rest of the Partridge article can be debated, but it is pointless. The above question is all that matters if you really want to understand why Russia reacted. Trump and JD Vance understand this point.
snoup
Nuclear missiles?
NATO hasn’t positioned any nuclear weapons on any territory it expanded into from 1990 onward.Russia acted because it wants an empire, AKA a sphere of influence (based on force). And they don’t come cheap. It’s paying a big price for that in blood and treasure.
NothingLeft
missile subs sitting a few 100km off shore are a far bigger threat. Land based missile systems are so passe. EG USA has >4000 warheads in it’s Ohio class subs.
emmess
FFS, I hear this lame Tucker Carlson line all the time
Have you [Mod – just debate the issues] never heard of Cuba?
Grunter
My point exactly – Cuba missile crisis in the early 60’s. The USA, quite rightly reacted.
Grunter
Here’s a decent interview from 4 hrs ago with DPF’s favourite – Niall Fergusson. The Hoover Institute interviewer is his usual annoying self (he actually sits there wringing his hands repeatedly as he shows his desperation)
Long interview – key point is in the final few minutes. “A kinetic war in the Indo-Pacific, there isn’t a war game scenario that I’m aware of that shows the USA winning”
Ferguson has recently been in long debates online with Vance (JD cleaned him up BTW). Ferguson now thinks that the USA is in a similar position as Britain was in the 1930’s – except there is no allied force to call on to rescue a failing empire – THAT IS THE REALITY.
judith8409121
and all that is pointless – what happened is nato/europe gave Putin a fake because. Putin had said if you give me this fake because i will use it. They did, so he did. The western bloc should have considered whether they were ready to fulfill the promises from their mouths that their military would need to keep – seems that wasn’t possible. And now – they are stuck giving away bits of Ukraine as the losers.
James Stephenson
The expansionist problem isn’t NATO, it’s the EU. The Russia Ukraine conflict started with Putin’s trade war to try to force Ukraine into remaining in a Russian trading block rather than join the EU.
The Real Tony
Correct. This is all detailed in Owen Matthews’ excellent book “Overreach”.
D.Phillips
Absolutely. It’s always been about money and trade. Everything else has just been smoke and mirrors.
PaulL
And so the usual apologists come out of the woodwork. In their minds Russia can do no wrong.
Mike
Still very early in St Peterburg. wait till the day shift arrives.
Hard Cheese
I think Emirates still fly to Russia, if they admire it so much they can certainly buy a ticket to get there. I hear there’s a good chance they might get a tour of Eastern Ukraine thrown in for free.
Ghost
Here are the declassified documents on this, they really are worth a read
Nigel
You don’t have to read far too see why Russia felt shafted.
This is interestingly worded as well
“NATO reiterates that in the cunent and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integra tion, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces”
GPT1
Why make excuses for the aggressor? Do Russians have no agency to make their own choices?
andrewo
The article completely misses the point by a country mile. The answer to why Putin invaded and when it did is as follows:
He invaded because he could. It’s that simple. He was encouraged by:
1. A weak President in the Whitehouse.
2. The West emasculating itself over the luxury belief of climate change.
3. The reliance of Europe on Russian gas.
Mobile Michael
Russian living standards have relatively fallen since the dissolution of the USSR. But in the rest of East Europe they have massively increased.
Putin is trying to reinstate the empire that provided cheap goods to the colonial master.
As Czechoslovakians used to joke, it’s good that the USA isn’t Communist – imagine having to support two other nations!
Richard
Oooooohhh…….. I thought it was Alan Partridge.
Probably would have made sense too, you know…….
Sir Henry Morgan
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, what was the point of expanding NATO?
Surely it would have made sense for the West to bring Russia onside and reduce potential for Russian-Chinese cooperation.
Regardless of who promised what to whom, it all looks a bit stupid.
Allan
A rhetorical question surely.
After getting free of the soviet yoke those nations knew well that Russia would cast a covetous glance in their direction. Joining NATO would give some defence.
The standard of living in those satellite states went ballistic once they got into the EU.
That is why Ukraine was so eager to join and the citizens went nuts when it looked like Rusian stooges weren’t going to let it happen.
GPT1
Ask the formerly occupied countries about the point of expanding NATO.
Henry Filth
The Eastern Europeans kicked the door down in their rush to join NATO.
tas
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has truly shown us who the useful idiots are. It’s astounding that people believe NATO is to blame for the attacks it is intended to defend against.
judith8409121
of course the continual joke is that the EU has funded Russia by buying more gas from Putin than they have spent on helping Ukraine. When your government is buying on both sides of the ledger you know its not a sane discussion.
GPT1
Quite apart from the fact that the NATO “promise” not to go East is complete rot why is that trotted out as a complete answer as something that everyone was meant to agree on but the Budapest Memorandum is just a guideline and the Minsk Agreements a wrinkle?
KH
Best not to mention the persecution of the eastern Ukrainians by their own government.
Leading to the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk breaking away and forming their own republics.
Leading to the government war on them from 2014 with shelling killing 15,000.
But you know. The West says ” no problem”
Not a big geopolitical war. Just another ethnic conflict. This time between Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers. Nasty and unsolvable as those are.
Add a Comment
Login to comment or vote
