Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
Note that Oryx lists more Russian tank losses than Ukrainian statistics yesterday, because it is working a backlog.
Mostly a rusty joke too. And it you don't have the surface fleet and naval airpower, they will just spend all their time getting hunted down by MPAs and ASW helicopters... and of course enemy SSNs.
The first ship with Ukrainian grain left Odessa. The first cargo ship Razoni loaded with grain under the flag of Sierra Leone left the port of Odessa on Monday. It became the first ship with Ukrainian food that went to sea in accordance with the agreements reached in Istanbul. According to reports, the ship is heading to Lebanon.
The Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled guns delivered earlier from Germany to the Ukrainian army are starting to break down, the German Spiegel news agency reported. Also, the Ukrainian army is already reporting this, as shown in the video. This is due to the fact that the Ukrainian military are firing from these guns literally many times more intensively than it is provided for by the technical regulations of 10 rounds per minute. One of the Ukrainian servicemen from the calculation of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 stated that the howitzer fired up to 300 rounds of ammunition per day. The guns do not withstand such operation, the loading mechanisms and barrels of German self-propelled guns wear out rapidly.
The Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled guns delivered earlier from Germany to the Ukrainian army are starting to break down, the German Spiegel news agency reported. Also, the Ukrainian army is already reporting this, as shown in the video. This is due to the fact that the Ukrainian military are firing from these guns literally many times more intensively than it is provided for by the technical regulations of 10 rounds per minute. One of the Ukrainian servicemen from the calculation of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 stated that the howitzer fired up to 300 rounds of ammunition per day. The guns do not withstand such operation, the loading mechanisms and barrels of German self-propelled guns wear out rapidly.
@Innominate, you hear about this? This will cause major problems, they'll be able to hit the barracks of Russians where they feel safe, or used to.
Can't find anything on Spiegel about this. Do not confuse burst fire with sustained fire. The sustained rate in 10rpm, but it can fire at 20rpm for 9s. So if you have a battery of 6, you can hit an target with 18 rounds in 9s and then move on. This could mean 18 Excalibur rounds or 36 SMArt/BONUS sensor-fused munitions are on their way to you in 9s. Then they move on for a few minutes and repeat.
They deserve it. Imagine a person called Zelensky is out to kill every Ukrainian who is left in Ukraine and willing to turn every woman of Ukraine into a prostitute. That too in a Europe which will soon go bankrupt unless they bow to Putin to save their industry and jobs. Even the women as prostitutes will be poor as their will be no buyers for their stuff. The finest outcome of it will be that USA and its poodle UK will be sent packing and kicked in their back. Europe has no future without Russia and only Russia can Guarantee the safety, security, food and energy for Europe. The dumbheads of Europe must realise it.
One more chapter is going to be added very soon of KOSOVO. NATO and EU will get kicked once again. It seems they love being kicked. I am not using the EFF word but that is most apt. I forsee complete chaos on the street sof Europe when winter arrives and their winter crops fail for want for fertilizers. They are headed the same direction as Sri Lanka. Energy crisis+food crisis+crop failure=Bankruptsy.
JAI HO.
I've never read so much crap in my life, Europe has already replaced Russia with Africa for oil and gas. Europe is doing just fine for food, I do the food shopping every week as normal. Putin's threats have zero effect. Meanwhile the Russian economy is collapsing and win or lose, it will no longer be the world's 2nd military after this war.
Hmm. 
Ramachandra Guha | Published 30.07.22, 02:50 AM
It is now five months since the first Russian tanks went deep into Ukrainian territory, and the first Russian jets rained bombs on Ukrainian towns and villages. It has been a brutal, bloody, war with perhaps 20,000 Russian soldiers killed in the fighting and probably twice as many Ukrainian men in uniform. The civilian casualties have been substantial too. Millions of Ukrainians have been compelled to flee their homeland to find temporary or permanent refuge in other nations. The economy of Ukraine has been ravaged; once the conflict ends, it shall take decades to restore it to its past position. And the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Russians have also been grievously affected, both because of Western sanctions and the costs of a war initiated by President Vladimir Putin.
Viewing the conflict as a member of the human species, I am horrified by the barbarism of the Russian military, its obliteration of the physical infrastructure of entire cities, its bombings of hospitals and civilian shelters, its assaults on Ukrainian women. Viewing the conflict as a citizen of India, I am dismayed by the pusillanimity of my country’s government, its refusal to condemn the invasion and its silence in the face of Russian atrocities.
When the war began in late February, and even through March, it was perhaps necessary for the Government of India to adopt a policy of wait and watch. It was not clear how long the conflict would go on; there was even talk of an early settlement. And getting the thousands of Indian students in Ukraine back home was obviously a top priority. However, as March turned into April, and April into May, and the cruelty of the Russian troops became more evident, it should no longer have been tenable to maintain a neutral position. It was clear that all that talk of the invasion being a reaction to Western provocation rang hollow. Anyone with any sense could now see that the war was being conducted by Putin not to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but to teach the Ukrainians a lesson for not bending to his will. The Russian president was possessed of a maniacal delusion that he was a modern-day incarnation of a medieval emperor, unifying Russia and all its neighbours into one nation beholden to one all-powerful Leader. He, and his army, would seek to make these fantasies a reality whatever the cost to the Ukrainians or, indeed, to the Russians themselves. (The latest, but by no means the least, example of the venality of the Putin regime is its bombing of the port city of Odessa immediately after signing an agreement allowing Ukraine to export wheat.)
President Putin believes that the Ukrainians are really Russians by another name, and they need therefore to be united with the motherland, by force if necessary. However, if these five months of war have revealed anything at all, it is that the spirit of nationalism among the Ukrainians runs very deep indeed. They see themselves as a different, distinct people, who deserved, and must retain, a national identity of their own. Before the invasion, there were perhaps a fairly large number of Ukrainians who were happy to acknowledge, and even stress, the cultural ties they shared with Russia. Not anymore. Now, a majority even of those Ukrainians who speak Russian at home refuse to countenance a political union with Russia.
The spirit of nationalism which animates the Ukrainian resistance to Russian imperialism recalls the spirit of nationalism that once animated Vietnamese resistance to American imperialism. It is wise to remember that India, a country itself born out of a successful Independence movement against an imperialist power, spontaneously supported the Vietnamese when they sought to free themselves first from French and then American overlordship. Despite India’s reliance on American economic and military aid in the 1960s — the former crucial in averting famine — we did not hesitate to point out to the US government that what it was doing in Vietnam was both morally wrong as well as politically unwise.
Another parallel even closer home comes to mind. In 1970, the people of what was then East Pakistan became increasingly disenchanted with being economically exploited, socially discriminated against, and politically oppressed by what was then West Pakistan. Their innate Bengali nationalism was asserting itself against an imposed Islamic identity. They yearned for a nation of their own. However, the military regime in power in Islamabad insisted that the East Bengalis were Pakistanis before anything else. They sought to violently suppress the rebellion, leading to India’s intervention and the creation of an independent nation of Bangladesh.
The Ukrainians are to the Russians now what the Bangladeshis once were to the Pakistanis —namely, a people with an independent national identity of their own seeking to free themselves from being overwhelmed by a more powerful country falsely claiming to share (and represent) their identity and their history. Back in 1970-71, India rightly castigated the Pakistani army for its savagery, rightly gave refuge to millions of refugees from East Pakistan, and rightly used a modest amount of military force when it became feasible and necessary. Admittedly, since Bangladesh was next door and Ukraine is far away, this sort of material support is not feasible in this case. But must we go to the other extreme and — by our continuing refusal to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine — be complicit in the crimes of Putin and his men in Ukraine?
One may speculate about the reasons behind the Government of India’s deeply unsatisfactory response to events in Ukraine. Perhaps it is our dependence on Russian military supplies that is at work here. Perhaps the ruling party’s ideologues fear that if we stress the fact that Ukrainians have the right to be a free nation, then some people might make the same sort of case for the Kashmiris or the Nagas. Perhaps the government hopes that by diversifying our sources of oil, it may be able to keep inflation under control and, thereby, avert social discontent. Perhaps even after eight years as prime minister, Narendra Modi is not really au fait with the complexities of international geopolitics and thus cannot take a stand.
Whatever the reasons, the Government of India’s position — or more accurately, its lack of a position — on Ukraine is both morally untenable as well as politically imprudent. Our external affairs minister, speaking in Krishna Menonesque mode, has accused European nations of hypocrisy for using Russian gas while criticising India for buying Russian oil. That the West can be hypocritical is not exactly breaking news. What may be pertinent here, however, is the Government of India’s own hypocrisy in this regard. Next month, we mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of our Independence from British colonial rule. This anniversary has been widely publicised by the Modi Sarkar; there is not a government advertisement, press release, or email that does not mention that this is our Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. And yet, in this exuberant celebration of seventy-five years of political freedom, the Indian government cannot bring itself to acknowledge the continuing existence of imperialism in the world today, as manifest most starkly in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
There is a compelling moral case for Indians to support the brave resistance of the Ukrainian people. And I believe there is a political case too. Because of our economic and demographic size, and our military and other assets, India has for some time now been taken fairly seriously in global public affairs. Given China’s own tacit endorsement of Putin’s actions, had our government more forthrightly condemned the invasion it might have helped put real pressure on Putin and his regime. India’s support could have decisively swung the narrative against Russia, compelling it to come to the negotiating table. Had our government acted thus, it would have enhanced our credibility on the world stage as well as helped bring the suffering to an end.
Ouch! Shame shame shame I know your name... Good article from this fella.
India’s shame
New Delhi’s silence on Ukraine is unacceptableRamachandra Guha | Published 30.07.22, 02:50 AM
It is now five months since the first Russian tanks went deep into Ukrainian territory, and the first Russian jets rained bombs on Ukrainian towns and villages. It has been a brutal, bloody, war with perhaps 20,000 Russian soldiers killed in the fighting and probably twice as many Ukrainian men in uniform. The civilian casualties have been substantial too. Millions of Ukrainians have been compelled to flee their homeland to find temporary or permanent refuge in other nations. The economy of Ukraine has been ravaged; once the conflict ends, it shall take decades to restore it to its past position. And the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Russians have also been grievously affected, both because of Western sanctions and the costs of a war initiated by President Vladimir Putin.
Viewing the conflict as a member of the human species, I am horrified by the barbarism of the Russian military, its obliteration of the physical infrastructure of entire cities, its bombings of hospitals and civilian shelters, its assaults on Ukrainian women. Viewing the conflict as a citizen of India, I am dismayed by the pusillanimity of my country’s government, its refusal to condemn the invasion and its silence in the face of Russian atrocities.
When the war began in late February, and even through March, it was perhaps necessary for the Government of India to adopt a policy of wait and watch. It was not clear how long the conflict would go on; there was even talk of an early settlement. And getting the thousands of Indian students in Ukraine back home was obviously a top priority. However, as March turned into April, and April into May, and the cruelty of the Russian troops became more evident, it should no longer have been tenable to maintain a neutral position. It was clear that all that talk of the invasion being a reaction to Western provocation rang hollow. Anyone with any sense could now see that the war was being conducted by Putin not to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but to teach the Ukrainians a lesson for not bending to his will. The Russian president was possessed of a maniacal delusion that he was a modern-day incarnation of a medieval emperor, unifying Russia and all its neighbours into one nation beholden to one all-powerful Leader. He, and his army, would seek to make these fantasies a reality whatever the cost to the Ukrainians or, indeed, to the Russians themselves. (The latest, but by no means the least, example of the venality of the Putin regime is its bombing of the port city of Odessa immediately after signing an agreement allowing Ukraine to export wheat.)
President Putin believes that the Ukrainians are really Russians by another name, and they need therefore to be united with the motherland, by force if necessary. However, if these five months of war have revealed anything at all, it is that the spirit of nationalism among the Ukrainians runs very deep indeed. They see themselves as a different, distinct people, who deserved, and must retain, a national identity of their own. Before the invasion, there were perhaps a fairly large number of Ukrainians who were happy to acknowledge, and even stress, the cultural ties they shared with Russia. Not anymore. Now, a majority even of those Ukrainians who speak Russian at home refuse to countenance a political union with Russia.
The spirit of nationalism which animates the Ukrainian resistance to Russian imperialism recalls the spirit of nationalism that once animated Vietnamese resistance to American imperialism. It is wise to remember that India, a country itself born out of a successful Independence movement against an imperialist power, spontaneously supported the Vietnamese when they sought to free themselves first from French and then American overlordship. Despite India’s reliance on American economic and military aid in the 1960s — the former crucial in averting famine — we did not hesitate to point out to the US government that what it was doing in Vietnam was both morally wrong as well as politically unwise.
Another parallel even closer home comes to mind. In 1970, the people of what was then East Pakistan became increasingly disenchanted with being economically exploited, socially discriminated against, and politically oppressed by what was then West Pakistan. Their innate Bengali nationalism was asserting itself against an imposed Islamic identity. They yearned for a nation of their own. However, the military regime in power in Islamabad insisted that the East Bengalis were Pakistanis before anything else. They sought to violently suppress the rebellion, leading to India’s intervention and the creation of an independent nation of Bangladesh.
The Ukrainians are to the Russians now what the Bangladeshis once were to the Pakistanis —namely, a people with an independent national identity of their own seeking to free themselves from being overwhelmed by a more powerful country falsely claiming to share (and represent) their identity and their history. Back in 1970-71, India rightly castigated the Pakistani army for its savagery, rightly gave refuge to millions of refugees from East Pakistan, and rightly used a modest amount of military force when it became feasible and necessary. Admittedly, since Bangladesh was next door and Ukraine is far away, this sort of material support is not feasible in this case. But must we go to the other extreme and — by our continuing refusal to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine — be complicit in the crimes of Putin and his men in Ukraine?
One may speculate about the reasons behind the Government of India’s deeply unsatisfactory response to events in Ukraine. Perhaps it is our dependence on Russian military supplies that is at work here. Perhaps the ruling party’s ideologues fear that if we stress the fact that Ukrainians have the right to be a free nation, then some people might make the same sort of case for the Kashmiris or the Nagas. Perhaps the government hopes that by diversifying our sources of oil, it may be able to keep inflation under control and, thereby, avert social discontent. Perhaps even after eight years as prime minister, Narendra Modi is not really au fait with the complexities of international geopolitics and thus cannot take a stand.
Whatever the reasons, the Government of India’s position — or more accurately, its lack of a position — on Ukraine is both morally untenable as well as politically imprudent. Our external affairs minister, speaking in Krishna Menonesque mode, has accused European nations of hypocrisy for using Russian gas while criticising India for buying Russian oil. That the West can be hypocritical is not exactly breaking news. What may be pertinent here, however, is the Government of India’s own hypocrisy in this regard. Next month, we mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of our Independence from British colonial rule. This anniversary has been widely publicised by the Modi Sarkar; there is not a government advertisement, press release, or email that does not mention that this is our Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. And yet, in this exuberant celebration of seventy-five years of political freedom, the Indian government cannot bring itself to acknowledge the continuing existence of imperialism in the world today, as manifest most starkly in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
There is a compelling moral case for Indians to support the brave resistance of the Ukrainian people. And I believe there is a political case too. Because of our economic and demographic size, and our military and other assets, India has for some time now been taken fairly seriously in global public affairs. Given China’s own tacit endorsement of Putin’s actions, had our government more forthrightly condemned the invasion it might have helped put real pressure on Putin and his regime. India’s support could have decisively swung the narrative against Russia, compelling it to come to the negotiating table. Had our government acted thus, it would have enhanced our credibility on the world stage as well as helped bring the suffering to an end.
Ouch! Shame shame shame I know your name... Good article from this fella.
They're too dependent on Russia, so all we get are half-baked, false equivalents and denialism.Hmm.
India’s shame
New Delhi’s silence on Ukraine is unacceptable
Ramachandra Guha | Published 30.07.22, 02:50 AM
It is now five months since the first Russian tanks went deep into Ukrainian territory, and the first Russian jets rained bombs on Ukrainian towns and villages. It has been a brutal, bloody, war with perhaps 20,000 Russian soldiers killed in the fighting and probably twice as many Ukrainian men in uniform. The civilian casualties have been substantial too. Millions of Ukrainians have been compelled to flee their homeland to find temporary or permanent refuge in other nations. The economy of Ukraine has been ravaged; once the conflict ends, it shall take decades to restore it to its past position. And the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Russians have also been grievously affected, both because of Western sanctions and the costs of a war initiated by President Vladimir Putin.
Viewing the conflict as a member of the human species, I am horrified by the barbarism of the Russian military, its obliteration of the physical infrastructure of entire cities, its bombings of hospitals and civilian shelters, its assaults on Ukrainian women. Viewing the conflict as a citizen of India, I am dismayed by the pusillanimity of my country’s government, its refusal to condemn the invasion and its silence in the face of Russian atrocities.
When the war began in late February, and even through March, it was perhaps necessary for the Government of India to adopt a policy of wait and watch. It was not clear how long the conflict would go on; there was even talk of an early settlement. And getting the thousands of Indian students in Ukraine back home was obviously a top priority. However, as March turned into April, and April into May, and the cruelty of the Russian troops became more evident, it should no longer have been tenable to maintain a neutral position. It was clear that all that talk of the invasion being a reaction to Western provocation rang hollow. Anyone with any sense could now see that the war was being conducted by Putin not to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but to teach the Ukrainians a lesson for not bending to his will. The Russian president was possessed of a maniacal delusion that he was a modern-day incarnation of a medieval emperor, unifying Russia and all its neighbours into one nation beholden to one all-powerful Leader. He, and his army, would seek to make these fantasies a reality whatever the cost to the Ukrainians or, indeed, to the Russians themselves. (The latest, but by no means the least, example of the venality of the Putin regime is its bombing of the port city of Odessa immediately after signing an agreement allowing Ukraine to export wheat.)
President Putin believes that the Ukrainians are really Russians by another name, and they need therefore to be united with the motherland, by force if necessary. However, if these five months of war have revealed anything at all, it is that the spirit of nationalism among the Ukrainians runs very deep indeed. They see themselves as a different, distinct people, who deserved, and must retain, a national identity of their own. Before the invasion, there were perhaps a fairly large number of Ukrainians who were happy to acknowledge, and even stress, the cultural ties they shared with Russia. Not anymore. Now, a majority even of those Ukrainians who speak Russian at home refuse to countenance a political union with Russia.
The spirit of nationalism which animates the Ukrainian resistance to Russian imperialism recalls the spirit of nationalism that once animated Vietnamese resistance to American imperialism. It is wise to remember that India, a country itself born out of a successful Independence movement against an imperialist power, spontaneously supported the Vietnamese when they sought to free themselves first from French and then American overlordship. Despite India’s reliance on American economic and military aid in the 1960s — the former crucial in averting famine — we did not hesitate to point out to the US government that what it was doing in Vietnam was both morally wrong as well as politically unwise.
Another parallel even closer home comes to mind. In 1970, the people of what was then East Pakistan became increasingly disenchanted with being economically exploited, socially discriminated against, and politically oppressed by what was then West Pakistan. Their innate Bengali nationalism was asserting itself against an imposed Islamic identity. They yearned for a nation of their own. However, the military regime in power in Islamabad insisted that the East Bengalis were Pakistanis before anything else. They sought to violently suppress the rebellion, leading to India’s intervention and the creation of an independent nation of Bangladesh.
The Ukrainians are to the Russians now what the Bangladeshis once were to the Pakistanis —namely, a people with an independent national identity of their own seeking to free themselves from being overwhelmed by a more powerful country falsely claiming to share (and represent) their identity and their history. Back in 1970-71, India rightly castigated the Pakistani army for its savagery, rightly gave refuge to millions of refugees from East Pakistan, and rightly used a modest amount of military force when it became feasible and necessary. Admittedly, since Bangladesh was next door and Ukraine is far away, this sort of material support is not feasible in this case. But must we go to the other extreme and — by our continuing refusal to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine — be complicit in the crimes of Putin and his men in Ukraine?
One may speculate about the reasons behind the Government of India’s deeply unsatisfactory response to events in Ukraine. Perhaps it is our dependence on Russian military supplies that is at work here. Perhaps the ruling party’s ideologues fear that if we stress the fact that Ukrainians have the right to be a free nation, then some people might make the same sort of case for the Kashmiris or the Nagas. Perhaps the government hopes that by diversifying our sources of oil, it may be able to keep inflation under control and, thereby, avert social discontent. Perhaps even after eight years as prime minister, Narendra Modi is not really au fait with the complexities of international geopolitics and thus cannot take a stand.
Whatever the reasons, the Government of India’s position — or more accurately, its lack of a position — on Ukraine is both morally untenable as well as politically imprudent. Our external affairs minister, speaking in Krishna Menonesque mode, has accused European nations of hypocrisy for using Russian gas while criticising India for buying Russian oil. That the West can be hypocritical is not exactly breaking news. What may be pertinent here, however, is the Government of India’s own hypocrisy in this regard. Next month, we mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of our Independence from British colonial rule. This anniversary has been widely publicised by the Modi Sarkar; there is not a government advertisement, press release, or email that does not mention that this is our Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. And yet, in this exuberant celebration of seventy-five years of political freedom, the Indian government cannot bring itself to acknowledge the continuing existence of imperialism in the world today, as manifest most starkly in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
There is a compelling moral case for Indians to support the brave resistance of the Ukrainian people. And I believe there is a political case too. Because of our economic and demographic size, and our military and other assets, India has for some time now been taken fairly seriously in global public affairs. Given China’s own tacit endorsement of Putin’s actions, had our government more forthrightly condemned the invasion it might have helped put real pressure on Putin and his regime. India’s support could have decisively swung the narrative against Russia, compelling it to come to the negotiating table. Had our government acted thus, it would have enhanced our credibility on the world stage as well as helped bring the suffering to an end.
Ouch! Shame shame shame I know your name... Good article from this fella.
Since when is Chechnya a "neighbour?" If you consider Chechnya a war of aggression instead of a civil war , then we ought to be having a different argument.
Yes & what exactly triggered off this war ? Put another way why's there peace , however tenuous , between Georgia & Russia today ?
Leftover of the dissolution of the USSR. For context , consider the issue of the Republic of Sprska & the Brcko district in Bosnia Herzegovina or even the "Republic of Kosovo " all leftovers from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Had these issues been easy to resolve they would've been solved long ago .
What're you views on the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 ? How do you think things would've panned out had Khrushchev been adamant instead of accomodating ? How do you view the role of the Kennedy adminstration including Kennedy himself in the entire crisis ? What are the parallels you see in the current war in Ukraine ?
I hold no brief for Putin save to say that it's one thing to have ideas about resurrecting the empire , another thing to have the means & will to do it & quite another to have the opportunity to execute these plans assuming the first two components are in place.
The last part was facilitated by the US & NATO . Then again as the view goes in most non European / non western nations including but not restricted to India , China , etc it may be precisely what the west wanted .
Out here in India , we see the US playing a similar game . The Chinese see reunification with Taiwan as part of their unfinished nation building project & it occupies the top most priority .
However , the recent clashes on the border or as we term it - the LAC with us in 2020 which was totally unexpected in most quarters in India has brought home the notion that China regards this as part of the their unfinished agenda too perhaps just a notch below Taiwan if not on par with it .
It's here that the US is trying desperately to inveigle India into some sort of defensive alliance. The situation is similar to late 1930's Germany where the Anglo French alliance saw both the regimes that ruled Germany & the USSR as odious .
Since Hitler was a sworn enemy of Communism , it was hoped that he would attack the USSR while the rest of Europe was content to let the 2 of them slug it out . This is the context in which the Munich Agreement ought to be seen .
Stalin who feared Hitler considering him as his mortal enemy just as Nazism as an ideology was the mortal enemy of Communism , desperately reaching out to the UK & France for a possible alliance , was alarmed at the Munich Agreement & redoubled his efforts , reaching terms with Hitler under the Molotov Ribbentrop pact .
Out here in India we are often fed this western trope of how cynical both Stalin & Hitler were since both were equally demonised by the west with Stalin being demonised to a lesser extent since after all he did ally with the west & ended up on the victorious side .
However the Russians were deeply sceptical of the Munich Agreement & saw it as an example of western cynicism . We know how the rest of the it panned out .
Why am I bringing this up in context to Zelensky , Ukraine , Putin , Russia , the US & NATO for we're seeing the same game being played here albeit more subtly , in a nuanced manner where the US , Japan , Taiwan etc would rather China join war with India instead of targeting Taiwan as it's only India today which has the ability to blunt China's offensive capabilities to a large extent & either get into a stalemate or see China winning a Pyrrhic victory. Of course there's the outside chance that we may turn the tables on China too .
As to why would the Chinese attempt it with India , I happened to read an article once in Asia Nikkei just before the pandemic wherein the Japanese security establishment concluded that the Chinese were suffering from the same state of hubris that pervaded the pro war faction of the IJA in pre WW-2 Japan.
Your analysis is spot on . Your conclusions lack the clarity of your analysis though.
The early western plans to introduce market style economy was disastrous for Russia. With Yeltsin drunk on the job , his kitchen cabinet , the oligarchy & western business & institutions busy carving up most of Russian assets the initial enthusiasm with the west dissipated after Russians of all classes were pauperised with their assets sold at bargain basement prices . Enter Putin.
Putin is on record stating he specifically requested Clinton on admission to NATO only to have the latter brush him off with a laugh towards the fag end of his presidency. I've no clue if it actually transpired in the way Putin described it but there are multiple videos of Putin out there since the Georgian crisis in 2007 with Putin repeating it just before the war in Ukraine began too to reinforce the point that the west & in particular the US was always hostile to Russia & it's interests.
Possibly. Russia like it's predecessor was always a land power . The situation still persists vis a vis the US.