The Brink of War?

[Moses]

Now the Ruskies are shelling kindergartens in Ukraine. Figures...

Ok, Matt, I found time to check that "news" about kindergarten. And here is video in Washington post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...rten-shelling/

And I have questions about that setup (yes, it is totally false scene):

Announced what it was explosion from artillery's shell. This shell made hole in 4-bricks-thick wall almost 1 meter in diameter. So it must be very strong explosion, right?

Why then all glasses in room including thin glass door are in own places?
Can you imagine what explosion that broke half meter thick wall will not broke glass door?
Window frame just in 1 meter from hole is not damaged also, there are no glass on the floor.
Glass door to next room just in opposite wall of the room with hole is untouched also.

image_2022-02-19_120716.jpg

1645261721(1).jpg

1645261337(1).jpg

Commentaries in Washington Post under that article:

The claim is that a 120mm mortar shell caused the damage from an impact site 30-50 meters from the wall. but even if it were closer the hole is about 5 feet up a wall and has blown a hole directly thru a four or five layer thick brick wall. The damage does not look like a falling shell but more like a projectile weapon impacted the wall, punching thru the wall like a bullet. Like a bazooka or another flat trajectory weapon would cause. Even like a shaped charge stuck to the wall. A nearby falling shell like a mortar would cause a more oval shaped pattern of damage both inside and outside due to gravity and the pattern of the blast. However this hole and damage is circular.... and even the soccer balls look staged. I mean did the blast cause them to shoot across the room rebound and land on the rubble. But even if the blast were close to the building why are so few windows blown out, they have puncture damage, that seems appropriate for shrapnel. But to blow thru a 5 deep brick wall

Regarding the picture showing the hole in the wall:
1. Why is there no evidence of any charred or burnt items in the room? There is no damage to walls in room except for the hole. An explosive charge would have done much more damage.
2. Why does it appear like the bricks just fell out of the wall in whole pieces below the hole?
3. Notice there is no debris on top of the items on the floor as if the items were placed there after.

The evidence in the picture doesn't support the story. It appears poorly staged.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

I'm sure your extensive knowledge of Russian history includes the Treaty of Tilsit. How useful was that in assuring the future of Russia at the time? I'm rather fond of that saying of Napoleon's too - "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake"

I would not agree that your example is a great comparison, as the Treaty of Tilsit was a formal treaty made between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander the First (I think it was). However there was never any Treaty signed where NATO agreed to not admit former Eastern Bloc countries. This story Moses has publicised is just mid to higher level foreign affairs officials talking about the fact that they believe they had promised the USSR that NATO wouldn’t expand. It is not a formal Treaty.

Anyway, it’s not exactly a scoop. Foreign policy documents released by USA over a decade ago have demonstrated that although no Treaty was ever signed saying the NATO would never expand East, the Russians definitely given plenty of verbal assurances along those lines between 1989 and 1991. Here’s a link to a story in the Washington Monthly which is basically blaming America for the whole problem, on that basis.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/0...-new-cold-war/

Here is probably the most damning section from it:

“The U.S. non-expansion promise was made several times during discussions in Moscow on February 9, 1990, according to a State Department “memcon” or memorandum of conversation. Secretary of State Baker told Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that German reunification would be accompanied by “iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward.”

Meeting Gorbachev later that day, Baker reiterated the pledge. “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,” Baker said. “Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.”

However, as the journalist in the piece is using it to make an argument that America is at fault, I think he under-emphasises a few facts. Such as the fact that if there was never any written agreement about expansion - this was just the policy and promises of the US government of the day. The “iron-clad guarantees” that Baker spoke of never actually materialised, presumably as Baker and George Bush Snr. realised that any formal Treaty saying any such thing would never be approved in Congress.

So when Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Warren Christopher arrived in 1993, they were free to decide to change that foreign policy, which they did by deciding that NATO membership would be needed for geopolitical stability in Eastern Europe, (such was the fear of countries such as Estonia and Poland about post-Soviet Russia).

The only major agreement about the security situation in Eastern Europe that was put in writing at the time was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. This obligated Russia, the UK, and the U.S. “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”, and was negotiated in exchange for Ukraine’s relinquishing Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its territory. Needless to say, Putin has demonstrated since 2014 that this agreement is not worth the paper it was written on, so it is a bit rich for him to be getting so shirty about purely verbal assurances from 1990 not being worth the paper they were NOT written on!

That is not to say that the Russians do not have some reasons to be enbittered about how things worked out regarding the expansion of NATO, but to try and claim that as justification to seize Ukrainian territories in 2022, two decades after the happenings they are complaining of, is a bit of a stretch.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Also, I must say that Moses’s use of the Der Spiegel article is interesting.

Seemingly it is to be understood that verbal commitments made to the USSR in 1990-1991 apply to Russia of today, despite the fact these were conversations with the government of the USSR, represented at that time by Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze, a non Russian politician from the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic within the USSR.

But when we look at the decision to transfer Crimea from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukraine in the 1950’s, it was all the doings of Soviet politicians from non-Russian Republics, and “no Russian was consulted” - therefore Putin should not feel bound in the slightest by the decision.

Bit of an inconsistency there as to whether Moses regards the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR or not.

[Moses]

Bit of an inconsistency there as to whether Moses regards the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR or not.

Well, by this logic we have situation: USSR gave, USSR took back...

[StevieWonders]

I would not agree that your example is a great comparison

If you believe that was the point I was making I suppose your comment has some validity. If you can't work out the point I was making in the context of Moses' statement to which I was replying maybe you should think again. Maybe you should consider the image of Neville Chamberlain on returning from a meeting with Hitler "I have in my hand". How useful was that piece of paper?

[RonanTheBarbarian]

If you believe that was the point I was making I suppose your comment has some validity. If you can't work out the point I was making in the context of Moses' statement to which I was replying maybe you should think again. Maybe you should consider the image of Neville Chamberlain on returning from a meeting with Hitler "I have in my hand". How useful was that piece of paper?

I understood that it was not quite the point you were making, but using that example misleadingly gave the impression that what happened in the 1990's that Putin is so sour about involved a "Treaty" - it did not.

Gorbachev, Shevardnadze or Yeltsin never got any piece of paper in the first place.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Well, by this logic we have situation: USSR gave, USSR took back...

I agree that is a logical way of looking at it - does make the current version of the "USSR" look a bit of a bully though.

[StevieWonders]

I agree that is a logical way of looking at it - does make the current version of the "USSR" look a bit of a bully though.

Best joke of the morning so far. I wonder what more the day can bring

[cdnmatt]

Well, by this logic we have situation: USSR gave, USSR took back...

By that logic, I'm sure China wouldn't mind if the UK took Hong Kong back, right?

[Dodger]

.

The only major agreement about the security situation in Eastern Europe that was put in writing at the time was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. This obligated Russia, the UK, and the U.S. “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”, and was negotiated in exchange for Ukraine’s relinquishing Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its territory. Needless to say, Putin has demonstrated since 2014 that this agreement is not worth the paper it was written on, so it is a bit rich for him to be getting so shirty about purely verbal assurances from 1990 not being worth the paper they were NOT written on!

Excellent factual summary of historical events. Your paragraph above says it all.

Thanks for taking the time to outline this for all of us.