Ukraine Rules of Engagement

[Apocal]

The question is, what is a real shooting war? And do "real shooting wars" even exist nowadays? Most military operations today are embedded in a highly complex politcal and public opinion landscape, where a few minutes of video on YouTube can make or break public and parliamentary support for military action.

 

I don't think the distinction between hypothetical "real wars" and the actual wars the West has been fighting for the last 20 years is realistic. Even the Russian army isn't really fighting its own wars nowadays, relying on hybrid war and proxies to do their dirty work. I don't think we will see one of these "real wars" for quite some time, it's just too costly nowadays, even for autocratic regimes like Russia. And that's why the Scenario of CMBS will probably remain fictional. Hopefully.

 

Wars just as mean as anything are still being fought bro.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

Yes. That would look bad on CNN. And as for what Russia Today would be saying I shudder to hink. Assuming it had not been taken off the air on the outbreak of war of course! :-)

 

Orbital bombardment? Really? :-)

 

It would certainly look bad, but if there's a burned out BMP in the courtyard, and wrecked Russian hardware in the pews, it rather makes it play better internationally.  Russia Today is trash and I honestly don't think it has traction outside of Russians or people who think Putin is the Lord Emperor here to save them from American Jackals or something.

 

Re: Orbital bombardment 

 

 

While not universal, I've found in some quarters that statement from the movie Aliens is often used to express the extreme end of dealing with a situation (or alternately as a "Things are messed up enough we'd be better off burning it all to the ground")

[VladimirTarasov]

Russian ROE is to shoot any non-Russians comrades!(sarcasm) In all reality Russia would have the strictest ROE at a strategic scale, But our soldiers are educated enough and in drills instead of destroying a whole area with mortars we were sent in with orders to take out enemies and retrieve any civilians. If you ask me if they teach us this in drills I think that shows a level of dignity. So please stop with this stereotype that Russians are "evil murderous" people.

 

Ukraine's ROE would depend on where they're fighting if its in Donetsk, Russia will have  disadvantage as artillery would be limited, But Ukraine can shell with 220mm rockets with no fear because 1.) Population is against them plus media will be in their advantage with the U.S. supporting them 2.)Rebels are there. 

 

But if it is in lets say for example purposes Kiev, Then Ukraine will still have the advantage as Russia cannot use heavy artillery onto city and towns, Although if Ukraine makes the mistake of announcing a evacuated city or Russian units realize town is evacuated then they loose an advantage. 

[A Canadian Cat]

So please stop with this stereotype that Russians are "evil murderous" people.

Are we reading the same thread? I suppose that I could have missed something but I don't get the impression that anyone is saying Russians are evil. This is about the Ukrainian ROE in a game where they are facing off against Russian forces.

One thing I know is that basically all soldiers are just looking to get their job done and get home safe no matter who's soldiers they are. Sure there are some that do bad things but we should be starting from the reality that most guys just want to make it out in one piece.

[VladimirTarasov]

Are we reading the same thread? I suppose that I could have missed something but I don't get the impression that anyone is saying Russians are evil. This is about the Ukrainian ROE in a game where they are facing off against Russian forces.

One thing I know is that basically all soldiers are just looking to get their job done and get home safe no matter who's soldiers they are. Sure there are some that do bad things but we should be starting from the reality that most guys just want to make it out in one piece.

Possibly posted in wrong thread, Didn't someone say that "Obviously Russians wont follow ROE"? I mean that is pretty much saying Russians will murder, Because ROE limits those.

[DasMorbo]

Off topic:

 

Are we reading the same thread? I suppose that I could have missed something but I don't get the impression that anyone is saying Russians are evil. This is about the Ukrainian ROE in a game where they are facing off against Russian forces.

One thing I know is that basically all soldiers are just looking to get their job done and get home safe no matter who's soldiers they are. Sure there are some that do bad things but we should be starting from the reality that most guys just want to make it out in one piece.

 

First couple of posts are very much in favour of the NATO having tight ROE and Russia does not. Guess Vladimir refers to that and the general negative tone towards Russia's aims and motivations expressed in this forum.

 

Even though I am German and thus on NATOs side I can understand his frustration. As for every conflict, both sides are responsible, and I don't read anything about that here.

Most people have forgotten that NATO has guranteed to Russia in the early 1990s, there would be no extension of the NATO towards the east at any time whatsoever. Look today: Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, just to name a few new NATO-countries. I call that a clear breach of promise, and quite some responsibility for the conflict that evolves.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think the Russians have no idea of humanist freedom, that is why they love their suppressive dictator, plus they are severely paranoid against the west for no real reason.

Still no reason to stir them up like we (the NATO) did.

 

 

Best regards

Olf

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Most people have forgotten that NATO has guranteed to Russia in the early 1990s, there would be no extension of the NATO towards the east at any time whatsoever.

 

This is actually one of the biggest urban legends to come out of the Cold War.

[sburke]

Possibly posted in wrong thread, Didn't someone say that "Obviously Russians wont follow ROE"? I mean that is pretty much saying Russians will murder, Because ROE limits those.

Heh you mean like the original post? 

 

Suffice it to say if in CMBS we have an urban scenario, the rules of engagement are going to be pretty much use anything you can to eliminate your opponent.  Think Arnhem 1944, both sides were shelling the city environs and the civilians were still trapped in the battleground..

[sburke]

This is actually one of the biggest urban legends to come out of the Cold War.

Agreed, That is a claim that keeps being touted by Russia that has no actual factual basis.  If anything Russia is the one in violation of an actual treaty they signed publicly.

 

Budapest Memorandum

Main article: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature. Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian, and Ukrainian languages.

[Apocal]

Don't get me wrong - I think the Russians have no idea of humanist freedom, that is why they love their suppressive dictator, plus they are severely paranoid against the west for no real reason.

 

They love Putin for perfectly understandable reasons totally divorced from any understanding or misunderstanding of "humanist freedom": he turned the economy around and restored a sense of national dignity. It isn't exactly a secret that the majority of the current Russian middle class owe their position in society to Putin's massive increase in the mid-level state bureaucracy, nor is some uniquely Russian love of totalitarianism the reason they cheered when we he ended the Chechen War decisively in Russia's favor and it is should obvious that breaking the effective political power of the oligarchs was going to be extremely popular after the loot-fest of the nineties.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Apocal

[agusto]

This is actually one of the biggest urban legends to come out of the Cold War.

 

But there is a treaty that regulates NATO nuclear weapons on former USSR soil. IIRC there is also one that limits NATO exercises on former eastern bloc states.

[sburke]

But there is a treaty that regulates NATO nuclear weapons on former USSR soil. IIRC there is also one that limits NATO exercises on former eastern bloc states.

Can you cite any of those?  i have done some preliminary searches and can't find anything quite like that.

 

There is this on NATOs home page along with a bunch of other interesting stuff.

 

Assuring the security of the Euro-Atlantic area remains at the heart of NATO's purpose, but the role of U.S. nuclear forces based in Europe has been reduced as the Alliance's ability to diffuse a crisis diplomatically has significantly improved. NATO has committed to eliminate "all nuclear artillery and ground-launched short-range nuclear missiles" and significantly reduce the role and readiness of sub-strategic nuclear weapons in defense planning. This position is reflected by member states such as Denmark, Norway, and Spain which forbid the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime. Though the nuclear forces based in Europe provide an essential link between Europe and North America, NATO will only maintain a "minimum level sufficient to preserve peace and stability" while reducing the strategic role of these weapons in defense plans

 

 

Promises and pledges

Claim: NATO promised not to build infrastructure or move troops into the new Allies in Central and Eastern Europe.

Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010. (The Founding Act can be read here.)

In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe."

Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act.

 

Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East

Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim.

Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance.

Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989.

This was confirmed by the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines:

"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

NATO enlargement

Claim: NATO enlargement followed the same process as the expansion of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact

Fact: The countries of Central and Eastern Europe chose to apply for NATO membership through their own national democratic processes. This was done through debate, in peacetime conditions, and in a transparent way.

Their incorporation into the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was carried out under conditions of military occupation, one-party dictatorship and the violent suppression of dissent.

 

im: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical

Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis.

Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo's final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.

In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated solution.

In Kosovo, international attempts to find a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia annexed part of Ukraine's territory in less than 30 days.

Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).

Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a "narrow and specific" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.

 

Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate

Fact: Ukraine's President Poroshenko was elected on 25 May with a clear majority in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as showing the "clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms." The only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those controlled by separatists, who undertook "increasing attempts to derail the process."

The current parliament was elected on 26 October in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as "an amply contested election that offered voters real choice, and a general respect for fundamental freedoms". It again pointed out that "Electoral authorities made resolute efforts to organize elections throughout the country, but they could not be held in parts of the regions (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk or on the Crimean peninsula".

Finally, Russian officials continue to allege that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by "Nazis" and "fascists." However, in the parliamentary elections, the parties whom Russia labelled as "fascists" fell far short of the threshold of 5% needed to enter parliament. Ukraine's electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of the parliament reflects that.

In short, the President and parliament are legitimate, the actions of the separatists were not.

Edited February 18, 2015 by sburke

[agusto]

But there is a treaty that regulates NATO nuclear weapons on former USSR soil. IIRC there is also one that limits NATO exercises on former eastern bloc states.

 

Can you cite any of those?  i have done some preliminary searches and can't find anything quite like that.

 

 

Atricle 5 paragraph 3 in the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany (scroll down for english version)

 

http://dpvm.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/VertragstextOriginal.pdf

 

No nukes or foreign armed forces are allowed in Eastern Germany: "Foreign armed forces or nuclear weapons or their carriers are not to be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there".

 

Accoring to the german political magazine Der Spiegel, there are numerous sources/documents that clearly show that NATO foreign ministers of 1990 created the impression to the soviets that there will be no NATO expansion towards the east. The article also notes though that there are no treaties that legally limit NATO deployments in other former eastern bloc countries other than Eastern Germany. Unfortunately though Der Spiegel does not reveal its sources. However Der Spiegel is a high quality magazine, i highly doubt they would make anything like that up.

 

Here is the article (pdf, german):

http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/67871653

 

HTML version:

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-67871653.html

 

Quote from the article:

 

So sprach Genscher* am 10. Fe-

bruar 1990 zwischen 16 und 18.30

Uhr mit Schewardnadse**, und der

bis vor kurzem geheim gehaltene

deutsche Vermerk hält fest:

„BM (Bundesminister): Uns sei

bewusst, dass die Zugehörigkeit ei-

nes vereinten Deutschlands zur

Nato komplizierte Fragen aufwer-

fe. Für uns stehe aber fest: Die

Nato werde sich nicht nach Osten

ausdehnen.“

 

Google translate:

 

So Genscher said on 10 Fe

ruary 1990 between 16 and 18:30

Clock with Shevardnadze**, and the

until recently kept secret

German memorandum states:

"BM ( Minister ) : We should

aware that membership of one

nes united Germany to

NATO throwing up complex questions

fe . For us, however am certain:

NATO will not eastward

expand . "

 

*Genscher was West Germanys foreign minister at the time.

** Soviet foreign minister at the time.

Edited February 18, 2015 by agusto

[dan/california]

The question is, what is a real shooting war? And do "real shooting wars" even exist nowadays? Most military operations today are embedded in a highly complex politcal and public opinion landscape, where a few minutes of video on YouTube can make or break public and parliamentary support for military action.

 

I don't think the distinction between hypothetical "real wars" and the actual wars the West has been fighting for the last 20 years is realistic. Even the Russian army isn't really fighting its own wars nowadays, relying on hybrid war and proxies to do their dirty work. I don't think we will see one of these "real wars" for quite some time, it's just too costly nowadays, even for autocratic regimes like Russia. And that's why the Scenario of CMBS will probably remain fictional. Hopefully.

The scenarios postulated in this game constitute a real shooting war.  My definition of that is very simple, is one little mistake going to result in ten or 15 very unpleasant letters to write.

[sburke]

so this is a treaty between Germany, the US, France and the USSR (Russia) for the final reunification of Germany. That is all it is regarding.  It is not a treaty with NATO as a signatory nor does it address anything but the reunification of Germany and the stationing of Nuclear weapons in the Eastern portion of the country.

 

As to the Der Spiegel article, they can say what they like, but NATO as an organization does not make verbal agreements by one party.  Germany could not speak for NATO alone like this.  It is an organization that has voting sovereign members.  There was never a vote nor a treaty and Gorbachev himself says there was no such discussion he is aware of.  If there are numerous documents it would seem Russia could easily produce those and prove the claim.  It never has.  What that adds up to for me is Der Spiegel needs to either provide proof or risk losing it's reputation as "high quality".  Shevardnadze is one possible source of that conversation.  He worked for Gorbachev yet Gorbachev says there was no conversations regarding Eastern Europe and NATO.

 

So on one hand we have the factual process of an organization that has a treaty process, with no treaty.  The Head of the USSR saying there was no discussion, and a German magazine that says it has numerous documents that it then won't share.  I know which story I believe.

 

Then we have a formal document with Russia as a signatory member saying it will respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, not allow it's weapons to be used against that country and claiming it will not use economic pressure for political gain, all of which it has violated continuously for the past year.

 

Regardless, this is all a distraction and off topic.

 

 

 

 

Getting back on topic, I think both sides will find RoE to be a difficult item.  Video is so easy to obtain these days.  On the one hand you don't want stuff to come back and haunt you- The Hague court for example, on the other hand as a soldier you have military objectives to achieve and fellow soldiers whom you try to protect.

[agusto]

so this is a treaty between Germany, the US, France and the USSR (Russia) for the final reunification of Germany. That is all it is regarding.  It is not a treaty with NATO as a signatory nor does it address anything but the reunification of Germany and the stationing of Nuclear weapons in the Eastern portion of the country.

 

As to the Der Spiegel article, they can say what they like, but NATO as an organization does not make verbal agreements by one party.  Germany could not speak for NATO alone like this.  It is an organization that has voting sovereign members.  There was never a vote nor a treaty and Gorbachev himself says there was no such discussion he is aware of.  If there are numerous documents it would seem Russia could easily produce those and prove the claim.  It never has.  What that adds up to for me is Der Spiegel needs to either provide proof or risk losing it's reputation as "high quality".  Shevardnadze is one possible source of that conversation.  He worked for Gorbachev yet Gorbachev says there was no conversations regarding Eastern Europe and NATO.

 

So on one hand we have the factual process of an organization that has a treaty process, with no treaty.  The Head of the USSR saying there was no discussion, and a German magazine that says it has numerous documents that it then won't share.  I know which story I believe.

 

 

 

The 2+4 treaty prohibits any foreign country (which practically means NATO members) from stationing military in former East Germany, inculding conventional forces.

 

Regarding the talks between Genscher, Shevardnadze and Baker (who was US foreign minister at the time), even the offical NATO website confirms that those talks happened and that they were about limiting NATOs expansion:

 

Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.

 

It is these conversations that may have left some Soviet politicians with the impression that NATO enlargement, which started with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, had been a breach of these Western commitments. Some statements of Western politicians – particularly German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and his American counterpart James A. Baker – can indeed be interpreted as a general rejection of any NATO enlargement beyond East Germany.

 

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/DE/index.htm

 

Regarding your critic of Der Spiegel, it is not common practice for a news magazine to produce 1:1 copies of all of its sources. Especially if there are large numbers of documents that were used as sources, adding a copy of every single paper would be beyond the scope of a weekly news magazine.

Edited February 18, 2015 by agusto

[A Canadian Cat]

Heh you mean like the original post? 

Well there ya go. I just passed over that one. That's not a fair statement, every army will have an ROE in place. I am sure we can argue about which is better and why but nobody will have free reign and yet every side will accuse the other of using unrestrained force. Whatever way you slice it the real loosers will be the poor folk who live in the areas where the fighting take place.

[sburke]

The 2+4 treaty prohibits any foreign country (which practically means NATO members) from stationing military in former East Germany, inculding conventional forces.

Regarding the talks between Genscher, Shevardnadze and Baker (who was US foreign minister at the time), even the offical NATO website confirms that those talks happened and that they were about limiting NATOs expansion:

Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.

It is these conversations that may have left some Soviet politicians with the impression that NATO enlargement, which started with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, had been a breach of these Western commitments. Some statements of Western politicians – particularly German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and his American counterpart James A. Baker – can indeed be interpreted as a general rejection of any NATO enlargement beyond East Germany.

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/DE/index.htm

Regarding your critic of Der Spiegel, it is not common practice for a news magazine to produce 1:1 copies of all of its sources. Especially if there are large numbers of documents that were used as sources, adding a copy of every single paper would be beyond the scope of a weekly news magazine.

Gorbachev himself denies there was any such conversation regarding Eastern Europe and said so as recently as last fall. Given he has no reason to lie about it I tend to take him at his word over a news article or website that can't substantiate it's claims. Regardless NATO votes and puts into writing it's obligations. The USSR lost the Cold War, the disbanding of the Warsaw pact took time after the reunification of Germany. NATO's purpose during this period was obviously questionable and even up until last year it wasn't clear what it's future should be. That is no longer the case, Russia has proven to still be a threat to peace in Europe and it is a good thing for Eastern Europe that NATO does have members in the former eastern bloc.

The response about the documentation is interesting, there are too many documents to provide details, but producing even one is an undue hardship? Could they at least even cite one? Is there something super secret that prevents them saying where the documents might be found?

The follow up treaty that did set standards for Eastern Europe was the Budapest memorandum, which Russia has violated. This discussion is on the wrong subject. The question isn't has NATO lived up to its commitments, but rather has Russia. And the answer is consistently no.

Edited February 18, 2015 by sburke

[z1812]

What do we consider as being typical ROE in Ukraine?

 

Obviously Russians prbably won't bother anyway. For Ukraine they are defending their own country (unless fighting in Russian Seperatist areas) so theyare likely to have some interest in minimising civillian casualties.

 

As I recall, most independent observers found that the Ukrainians were largely to blame for indiscriminate shelling.

There is more to the situation in Ukraine than we know and is reported.

As far as blame and responsibility, there is surely enough to go around to all countries involved. Ironically the only country whose approach seems balanced is Germany's.

[MikeyD]

 

As I recall, most independent observers found that the Ukrainians were largely to blame for indiscriminate shelling.

 

 

No that's the exact opposite of the truth. Russia shells Ukrainian towns using artillery located on the Russian side of the border then claims no such thing has ever happened and it was the Ukrainians who did it! Happens over and over and over again. The thing about artillery rockets, though, the dudes imbed themselves into the ground pointing in precisely the direction from which they were fired. Hard to claim the rocket fire came from Ukraine side when the rocket points due east.

 

On the topic of rules of engagement, I think the game should make it so when you hit the cease fire button your side stops fighting but the Russian side continues.

Edited February 18, 2015 by MikeyD

[z1812]

No that's the exact opposite of the truth. Russia shells Ukrainian towns using artillery located on the Russian side of the border then claims no such thing has ever happened and it was the Ukrainians who did it! Happens over and over and over again. The thing about artillery rockets, though, the dudes imbed themselves into the ground pointing in precisely the direction from which they were fired. Hard to claim the rocket fire came from Ukraine side when the rocket points due east.

On the topic of rules of engagement, I think the game should make it so when you hit the cease fire button your side stops fighting but the Russian side continues.

It was reported in reputable media outlets that the shelling came mostly from the Ukraine side.

However I can't possibly know the truth of the situation as I was not there and do not not have first hand knowledge of it. I imagine most of us posting here are in the same boat.

Your last sentence is quite telling as to your objectivity.

Russians post here and they seem quite civil in their postings and deserve the same.

Edited February 19, 2015 by z1812

[agusto]

Gorbachev himself denies there was any such conversation regarding Eastern Europe and said so as recently as last fall. Given he has no reason to lie about it I tend to take him at his word over a news article or website that can't substantiate it's claims. Regardless NATO votes and puts into writing it's obligations. The USSR lost the Cold War, the disbanding of the Warsaw pact took time after the reunification of Germany. NATO's purpose during this period was obviously questionable and even up until last year it wasn't clear what it's future should be. That is no longer the case, Russia has proven to still be a threat to peace in Europe and it is a good thing for Eastern Europe that NATO does have members in the former eastern bloc.

The response about the documentation is interesting, there are too many documents to provide details, but producing even one is an undue hardship? Could they at least even cite one? Is there something super secret that prevents them saying where the documents might be found?

The follow up treaty that did set standards for Eastern Europe was the Budapest memorandum, which Russia has violated. This discussion is on the wrong subject. The question isn't has NATO lived up to its commitments, but rather has Russia. And the answer is consistently no.

 

Well, i disagree with you. I also dont think that Gorbachev is a particularily good source on this particular matter because in an interview he gave in 2009 he made statements contradicting what he said in 2014. I am not going to post a link to the interview though because you would probably not accept that as sufficiently credible source either, as you did with the article on NATOs very own official website. Anyways, lets leave it here and get back on topic. We dont have to have the same opinion.

Edited February 19, 2015 by agusto

[sburke]

Well, i disagree with you. I also dont think that Gorbachev is a particularily good source on this particular matter because in an interview he gave in 2009 he made statements contradicting what he said in 2014. I am not going to post a link to the interview though because you would probably not accept that as sufficiently credible source either, as you did with the article on NATOs very own official website. Anyways, lets leave it here and get back on topic. We dont have to have the same opinion.

That's fine, but for clarification about characterizing my position as not accepting even NATO statements as an excuse to not providing any other sources.  This is the relevant test of the article you linked to.

 

Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.

 

It is these conversations that may have left some Soviet politicians with the impression that NATO enlargement, which started with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, had been a breach of these Western commitments. Some statements of Western politicians – particularly German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and his American counterpart James A. Baker – can indeed be interpreted as a general rejection of any NATO enlargement beyond East Germany. However, these statements were made in the context of the negotiations on German reunification, and the Soviet interlocutors never specified their concerns. In the crucial “2+4” negotiations, which finally led Gorbachev to accept a unified Germany in NATO in July 1990, the issue was never raised. As former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze later put it, the idea of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolving and NATO taking in former Warsaw Pact members was beyond the imagination of the protagonists at the time.

 

So that is the two highest ranking Soviet leaders in the negotiations both saying this was not a subject.  The article does not counter what I said previously, in fact it supports it.  We do not have to have the same opinion, but please don't mis-characterize mine.

[VladimirTarasov]

No that's the exact opposite of the truth. Russia shells Ukrainian towns using artillery located on the Russian side of the border then claims no such thing has ever happened and it was the Ukrainians who did it! Happens over and over and over again. The thing about artillery rockets, though, the dudes imbed themselves into the ground pointing in precisely the direction from which they were fired. Hard to claim the rocket fire came from Ukraine side when the rocket points due east.

 

On the topic of rules of engagement, I think the game should make it so when you hit the cease fire button your side stops fighting but the Russian side continues.

I would have replied to this in more detail but honestly I will spare the time and not, What I will say is that if you havent been there and seen it with your eyes then you don't know whats going on, As it will be filtered through your screens. I've been there but I have no way of proving it to you so you might as well take it with a grain of salt, But what Im trying to say is if you have not been there and if you think what your news tells you is real, then you are not a person to argue with. I get offended by posts like this as it is disrespectful and ignorant, You have no clue what is going on in Ukraine nor will you ever be close to. If you seen the women and children crying there in person you would not be talking this way. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

If you seen the women and children crying there in person you would not be talking this way. 

 

 

They'd have less to cry about if a certain someone to the East hadn't started a war I imagine.  I imagine there's some very sad Dutch women and children, and some very dead ones that would have been more joyful had someone kept BUKs out of the hands of terrorists.