Ukraine Resists Russia Alone: A Tale Of The West's Broken Promises

[RiazHaq]

Ukraine Resists Russia Alone: A Tale Of The West's Broken Promises

Ukraine is under a massive Russian assault. Kiev is under siege. Russian President Vladimir Putin's main objective is to keep Ukraine perman...

www.southasiainvestor.com

Ukraine is under a massive Russian assault. Kiev is under siege. Russian President Vladimir Putin's main objective is to keep Ukraine permanently out of NATO, the western nations' military alliance. Putin says the West has broken its promise to not expand NATO after the end of the Cold War. Ukraine is complaining that the West has left Ukraine at the mercy of Russia's powerful military after it agreed to give up its nuclear weapons under firm security assurances contained in the Budapest Memorandum.

NATO Expansion

Ukraine Gave Up Nukes:
When Ukraine became independent in the early 1990s, it was the third-largest nuclear power in the world with thousands of nuclear arms. In the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to denuclearize completely based on security guarantee from the U.S., the U.K. and Russia, known as the Budapest Memorandum. Ukrainian analyst Mariana Budjeryn explained in an interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly as follows:
"It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly - sort of these legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought. But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers - so certainly, at least, the United States and Great Britain, they take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state".
NATO Expanded:

In a meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, the US Secretary of State James Baker gave “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

The US and Western European nations have added 14 former East Bloc nations and former Soviet Republics as NATO members in spite of repeated protests by the Russians. Putin's anger boiled over when the US supported a coup in 2014 that removed pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych from power in Ukraine. In a leaked taped conversation, US assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland can be heard discussing with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, the plans to replace Mr. Yanukovych.

Broken Promises:

Russia and Ukraine are both nursing grievances against the West. Russians feel aggrieved because the West has continued the NATO expansion to include several countries on its border where NATO has based US forces. Russians see these forces as a serious threat to its national security. Ukrainians resent the fact that they were persuaded by the West to give up thousands of nuclear weapons in the 1990s which could have prevented the Russian invasion of their country. The bottom line is that the Ukrainians are now facing the might of the powerful Russian military alone. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a speech that Ukraine has been “left alone” to defend against the Russian invasion. “Today, I asked the twenty-seven leaders of Europe whether Ukraine will be in NATO. I asked directly. Everyone is afraid. They do not answer", he added.

Lesson For Pakistan:

Commenting on Ukraine, Russian analyst Alexey Kupriyanov told Indian journalist Nirupama Subramanian: "For us, Ukraine is the same as Pakistan for India". What he failed to mention is that Pakistan has developed and retains its nuclear arsenal while Ukraine gave up its nukes in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many Ukrainians now regret this decision. Ukrainians know that no country with nuclear weapons has ever been physically invaded by a foreign military. They now understand the proven effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. They realize that all the talk about "rules-based order" is just empty rhetoric. The reality is the Law of the Jungle where the strong prey on the weak. The US military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that Washington is just as guilty of violating the "rules-based order" as Moscow.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

China-Pakistan Defense Production Collaboration Irks West

Balakot and Kashmir: Fact Checkers Expose Indian Lies

Is Pakistan Ready for War with India?

Pakistan-Made Airplanes Lead Nation's Defense Exports

Modi's Blunders and Delusions

India's Israel Envy: What If Modi Attacks Pakistan?

Project Azm: Pakistan to Develop 5th Generation Fighter Jet

Pakistan Navy Modernization

Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability

Who Won the 1965 War? India or Pakistan?

Pakistani Military's Performance in 1971 War

Ukraine Resists Russia Alone: A Tale Of The West's Broken Promises

Ukraine is under a massive Russian assault. Kiev is under siege. Russian President Vladimir Putin's main objective is to keep Ukraine perman...

www.southasiainvestor.com

 

[One_Nation]

Indian capabilities vs Pakistan are nowhere close to Russia-Ukraine balance even if Pakistan is without nukes.
If India tries to invade Pakistan even if they have military superiority like Russia they still cannot succeed due to what they are. Everything about them looks broken whether its their government or their military.

Indians have been fed by the west militarily and economically for the last 30 years and where have they dominated so far? Not even Bangladesh, maybe Nepal.

 

[IceCold]

Pakistan can not only hold Indian conventional attacks but also land its own conventional attacks with precision and guided ammunition, cruise, and Ballistic missiles. No Indian city is out of Pakistan's reach. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent and weapon of last resort. Should a situation like East Pakistan arises where a large chunk of our territory is about to be lost or a large portion of Pakistan armed forces are destroyed where we lose our ability to defend, nuclear weapons will come in.
Currently India does not have the means or the superiority to land such a blow on Pakistan.

 

[Oldman1]

Pakistan can not only hold Indian conventional attacks but also land its own conventional attacks with precision and guided ammunition, cruise, and Ballistic missiles. No Indian city is out of Pakistan's reach. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent and weapon of last resort. Should a situation like East Pakistan arises where a large chunk of our territory is about to be lost or a large portion of Pakistan armed forces are destroyed where we lose our ability to defend, nuclear weapons will come in.
Currently India does not have the means or the superiority to land such a blow on Pakistan.

I don't think India even has the logistics to support such endeavor IF it ever happens.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan can not only hold Indian conventional attacks but also land its own conventional attacks with precision and guided ammunition, cruise, and Ballistic missiles. No Indian city is out of Pakistan's reach. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent and weapon of last resort. Should a situation like East Pakistan arises where a large chunk of our territory is about to be lost or a large portion of Pakistan armed forces are destroyed where we lose our ability to defend, nuclear weapons will come in.
Currently India does not have the means or the superiority to land such a blow on Pakistan.

Just curious to know. I do not support any military effort by India against Pakistan, other than military steps taken in defence of Indian citizens. That is not intended to be a carefully constructed statement intended to be interpreted in a broad manner later, justifying military action.

My question is: even if a large chunk of Pakistani territory is about to be lost, or a large portion of your armed forces is destroyed and you lose your ability to defend, and even if India is in no way connected to these developments, will nuclear weapons still come in, against India?

Currently India does not have the means or the superiority to land such a blow on Pakistan.

What kind of blow?

 

[Basel]

Just curious to know. I do not support any military effort by India against Pakistan, other than military steps taken in defence of Indian citizens. That is not intended to be a carefully constructed statement intended to be interpreted in a broad manner later, justifying military action.

My question is: even if a large chunk of Pakistani territory is about to be lost, or a large portion of your armed forces is destroyed and you lose your ability to defend, and even if India is in no way connected to these developments, will nuclear weapons still come in, against India?


What kind of blow?

Yes MAD will be assured, that is how Pakistan deter war. Pakistan have already conveyed it's threshold of using nukes to world powers and India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes MAD will be assured, that is how Pakistan deter war. Pakistan have already conveyed it's threshold of using nukes to world powers and India.

So, let me get this straight.

No matter what, India gets flattened.

 

[IceCold]

My question is: even if a large chunk of Pakistani territory is about to be lost, or a large portion of your armed forces is destroyed and you lose your ability to defend, and even if India is in no way connected to these developments, will nuclear weapons still come in, against India?

Can you explain how will Pakistan lose without Indian attempts either overtly or covertly?

What kind of blow?

The 71 kind

 

[Joe Shearer]

Can you explain how will Pakistan lose without Indian attempts either overtly or covertly?

It's hypothetical. It's based on forces entirely indigenous to Pakistan getting the upper hand. Presumably there may be such entities that both exist and owe nothing to India to exist.

The 71 kind

Ah!

Good luck with that.

71 occurred 24 years after 47, and if you ask around, it was 90% internally generated.

If my arithmetic is to be trusted, it is now twice the time since then. Are you talking about teaming up with the Nagas and dealing India a grievous blow? Or are we on the millennium calendar that keeps getting thrown at us?

 

[One_Nation]

71 occurred 24 years after 47, and if you ask around, it was 90% internally generated.

You are taking us for a fool here.

 

[vi-va]

Indian capabilities vs Pakistan are nowhere close to Russia-Ukraine balance even if Pakistan is without nukes.
If India tries to invade Pakistan even if they have military superiority like Russia they still cannot succeed due to what they are. Everything about them looks broken whether its their government or their military.

Indians have been fed by the west militarily and economically for the last 30 years and where have they dominated so far? Not even Bangladesh, maybe Nepal.

Nepal must be a buffer zone between China and India. China won't allow Nepal to be second Sikkim.

 

[IceCold]

It's based on forces entirely indigenous to Pakistan

Let's discuss those indigenous forces first, BLA, BRA, TTP and all of them have one element in common.

Ah!

Good luck with that.

71 occurred 24 years after 47, and if you ask around, it was 90% internally generated.

If my arithmetic is to be trusted, it is now twice the time since then. Are you talking about teaming up with the Nagas and dealing India a grievous blow? Or are we on the millennium calendar that keeps getting thrown at us?

Indian support to Mukhtis was no secret. Pakistan learned the lesson the hard way not to rely on support from elsewhere.
As for the blow, I was referring to a similar blow happening to us again by India. Your leaders openly talk about separating Balochistan from Pakistan, do they not? The idea behind deterrence is to make the other party involved, realize what is it going to be should the shove comes to push.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are taking us for a fool here.

No, not at all. I very politely reminded you of the dates and intervals.

Nepal must be a buffer zone between China and India. China won't allow Nepal to be second Sikkim.

Let me correct you. Except for this present government of idiots, we have had the most cordial relations with the Nepalese people, and their governments. There is no question of any pressure on Nepal.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let's discuss those indigenous forces first, BLA, BRA, TTP and all of them have one element in common.

Their opposition to the way matters are managed in their own country? Yes, that does seem apparent. You must do something about it.

Indian support to Mukhtis was no secret. Pakistan learned the lesson the hard way not to rely on support from elsewhere.

Guess what happened before Searchlight?

Only what Z. A. Khan reports in his book (he was physically there, remember?). I hope I don't have to jog your memory.

As for the blow, I was referring to a similar blow happening to us again by India. Your leaders openly talk about separating Balochistan from Pakistan, do they not?

They also talk about Savarkar in glowing terms, they talk of Hindutva, they talk of only Indic religion followers being genuine citizens of our country, they refuse to acknowledge that millions of Indians, including the Dalit, eat beef, and have set up laws against cow-slaughter, while smiling weakly at the enormous beef exports that happen, under the guise of buffalo meat. They are scared of Hindu girls marrying Muslim boys and have even coined a term for it; they are scared of conversions, and they attack churches, mosques and those they consider missionaries. They make a mess of our constitution, including in apparently neutralising Art. 370, which is rank bad in law, and detain people for three years without forming charge-sheets on false accusations.

So do you take them seriously or as anything but utterly irredeemable bigots? Why should you pick out one point from their rambling and make a song and dance about it?

The idea behind deterrence is to make the other party involved, realize what is it going to be should the shove comes to push.

All I can say is, Wow.

Your posts were better in the past. Much better.

 

[peagle]

Ukraine Resists Russia Alone: A Tale Of The West's Broken Promises

Ukraine is under a massive Russian assault. Kiev is under siege. Russian President Vladimir Putin's main objective is to keep Ukraine perman...

www.southasiainvestor.com

Ukraine is under a massive Russian assault. Kiev is under siege. Russian President Vladimir Putin's main objective is to keep Ukraine permanently out of NATO, the western nations' military alliance. Putin says the West has broken its promise to not expand NATO after the end of the Cold War. Ukraine is complaining that the West has left Ukraine at the mercy of Russia's powerful military after it agreed to give up its nuclear weapons under firm security assurances contained in the Budapest Memorandum.

​

NATO Expansion

Ukraine Gave Up Nukes:
When Ukraine became independent in the early 1990s, it was the third-largest nuclear power in the world with thousands of nuclear arms. In the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to denuclearize completely based on security guarantee from the U.S., the U.K. and Russia, known as the Budapest Memorandum. Ukrainian analyst Mariana Budjeryn explained in an interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly as follows:
"It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly - sort of these legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought. But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers - so certainly, at least, the United States and Great Britain, they take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state".
NATO Expanded:

In a meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, the US Secretary of State James Baker gave “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

The US and Western European nations have added 14 former East Bloc nations and former Soviet Republics as NATO members in spite of repeated protests by the Russians. Putin's anger boiled over when the US supported a coup in 2014 that removed pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych from power in Ukraine. In a leaked taped conversation, US assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland can be heard discussing with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, the plans to replace Mr. Yanukovych.

Broken Promises:

Russia and Ukraine are both nursing grievances against the West. Russians feel aggrieved because the West has continued the NATO expansion to include several countries on its border where NATO has based US forces. Russians see these forces as a serious threat to its national security. Ukrainians resent the fact that they were persuaded by the West to give up thousands of nuclear weapons in the 1990s which could have prevented the Russian invasion of their country. The bottom line is that the Ukrainians are now facing the might of the powerful Russian military alone. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a speech that Ukraine has been “left alone” to defend against the Russian invasion. “Today, I asked the twenty-seven leaders of Europe whether Ukraine will be in NATO. I asked directly. Everyone is afraid. They do not answer", he added.

Lesson For Pakistan:

Commenting on Ukraine, Russian analyst Alexey Kupriyanov told Indian journalist Nirupama Subramanian: "For us, Ukraine is the same as Pakistan for India". What he failed to mention is that Pakistan has developed and retains its nuclear arsenal while Ukraine gave up its nukes in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many Ukrainians now regret this decision. Ukrainians know that no country with nuclear weapons has ever been physically invaded by a foreign military. They now understand the proven effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. They realize that all the talk about "rules-based order" is just empty rhetoric. The reality is the Law of the Jungle where the strong prey on the weak. The US military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that Washington is just as guilty of violating the "rules-based order" as Moscow.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

China-Pakistan Defense Production Collaboration Irks West

Balakot and Kashmir: Fact Checkers Expose Indian Lies

Is Pakistan Ready for War with India?

Pakistan-Made Airplanes Lead Nation's Defense Exports

Modi's Blunders and Delusions

India's Israel Envy: What If Modi Attacks Pakistan?

Project Azm: Pakistan to Develop 5th Generation Fighter Jet

Pakistan Navy Modernization

Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability

Who Won the 1965 War? India or Pakistan?

Pakistani Military's Performance in 1971 War

Ukraine Resists Russia Alone: A Tale Of The West's Broken Promises

Ukraine is under a massive Russian assault. Kiev is under siege. Russian President Vladimir Putin's main objective is to keep Ukraine perman...

www.southasiainvestor.com

If anyone thinks that Pakistan is to India what Ukraine is to Russia, then they need help.
They are not analysts, but fools living in a fantasy.

Can someone remind such Russians, that it was Pakistan that kicked you out of Afghanistan, what the heck could you do?
Nothing.

They gave grave threats, and physically attacked Pakistan, but left running with their tails stuck in their backsides. So please remember proper history before mouthing off stupid comments.