Sorry, not “bit quoting” you in what can be the very STW way of nitpicking your post apart in a bid to somehow say my opinion must be right! Lol I’m just doing it to give my own thoughts on what are perfectly valid points and anyway.. what do I know at the end of the day? ?
No, it's good. I'm just musing, and ultimately know no more than anyone else here, it's good to have these musings challenged and hear other perspectives on it all.
Maybe not right now but there are scenarios which move Putin closer to thinking he has nothing left to lose.
While it's true that the Russian armed forces doctrine has a much lower barrier for use-case for battlefield nuclear weapons than NATO, and with the caveat that we must always take all threats of the use of these weapons seriously, I cannot see that a resolution that preserves the integrity of Ukraine, and removes Russians forces from currently occupied land that is either back up directly by NATO troops in Ukraine, or concludes in negotiations that reassure Ukraine sufficiently for it's future protection i.e. NATO or EU membership should cause their use.
Putin has always escalated. and the use of that is a deliberate tactic to keep the west off guard, but the resolution that everybody wants - Russian withdrawal, doesn't require the use of them taking into account the possible follow-up.
Please give me the strength for what I'm about to do...
Dominant world power? Everyone (the whole world) will be starving and dominating the world is the last thing on their minds.
Which is why this won't happen...
I wonder how aircraft carriers will react if they are faced with mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower.
Same post, it doesn't go both ways
I love this phrase
...mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower
How many $bn has this missile cost to develop? How many $mn did that one cost?
The point about this was that it was a huge PR exercise. 36 weighted missiles for a test project that would be nuclear armed and so lack any accuracy as a kinetic payload. It would only hit a ship in an ocean by pure chance
Operationally it was a waste of components, as will the launch of any others (Ukraine thinks that up to 10 exist in various states of preparedness)
Why not NATO send their Tomahawk to test it out after Stormshadow?
That isn't a NATO decision, that's the Russian by-line.
Why not? Because Storm Shadow is a lot less of an escalation; it's never had a nuclear warhead, the range is about 1/6 of Tomahawk and couldn't threaten Moscow from Ukraine. It's the better missile for the job and it doesn't warrant a nuclear response
No amount of monkeys, no amount of typewriters, no amount of time………
It's funny you should say that as last night I was thinking to myself that Chewy's posts remind me of Shakespeare. When I see something written by Shakespeare my usual first reaction is "what a load of shite", but if I can be arsed to give it a bit more attention it starts to make a bit more sense.
Chewy's posts on this page actually make quite a bit of sense to me, although admittedly I had to read them more than once to get the gist.
Russia has given all the warning but somehow many in the west still think it is a good idea to escalate already hopeless situation.
The west haven't escalated at all, and in fact the USA is studiously making sure that it doesn't provide Ukraine with permissions, information, or supplies to mount anything like a proper defence, it's whole strategy is keeping it contained China, Iran, and North Korea on the other hand are contributing directly to allow Russia to continue with their aggression.
Come on @dazh, what’s your red line? At what point is it time to say enough is enough?
I've already said that if a NATO country was attacked by Russia that would require direct NATO involvement. It's pretty obvious that's what the red line is, isn't it?
Personally I think we are more likely to see a nuke used in israel than we are ukraine. I think ukraine / russia is going to keep rumbling on, with Russia making slow but steady progress at huge cost.
I don't see an off ramp, I cannot see ukraine 'winning' or russia 'losing'. So some sort of frozen conflict like the press is starting to push on to us is the most probable outcome.
If I genuinely thought uk was about to be nuked I would be looking to get my family out, no idea where or how, but I wouldn't be sat here typing on STW....
Chewy’s posts on this page actually make quite a bit of sense to me
Whilst his posts sometimes baffle me, I aim off for the likelihood that English is not his first language. I do value his perspective as someone from the opposite side of the globe. I think the forum is a little too regionally/demographically homogeneous for a totally objective view of the conflict. There are nuggets of wisdom amongst the strangeness. The strangeness can be pretty epic too though to be fair. I can definitely say he does not remind me of Shakespeare, unless the bard was on the 'shrooms!
I wonder how aircraft carriers will react if they are faced with mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower.
Well any USA/NATO carrier battle group will be completely covered by multiple overlapping AEGIS and CIWS systems, each of which makes the 20 year old Patriots Ukraine had been using look like something you'd get out of an Xmas cracker,
If the missiles start flying then an NATO carrier battle group may actually be the safest place on earth to be.
Unlike the Kremlin, no matter how bloody deep Putin's bunker is.
I’ve already said that if a NATO country was attacked by Russia
Russia doesn't have the capability to fight two wars on different fronts. It's taking Russia's entire economy to keep this one going. That's why there's 10,000 North Korean troops in Kursk, Russia's not going to attack any NATO countries. NATO isn't the reason it launched an attack on Ukraine, after all if Putin was actually worried about NATO encroachment (like we've been told is apparently legitimate) Why has he done nothing about Finland and Sweden both on his border and joining NATO?
Russia doesn’t have the capability to fight two wars on different fronts.
Yes I'm well aware of that. I was just answering the question about what I think the red line is, and that's it. I'm really not worried about Putin attacking a NATO country. That doesn't help Ukraine of course, but some here seem to be suggesting that NATO be more directly involved in Ukraine, which I think would be very dangerous and stupid.
Putin was actually worried about NATO encroachment
Which is utter bollocks. Poland joined in 99, the 3 Baltic States in 2004. So 4 direct neighbours since 20 years ago !
NATO expansion since the 2004 cohort was into the smaller Baltic nations who are not direct neighbours and have no regional power.
but some here seem to be suggesting that NATO be more directly involved in Ukraine, which I think would be very dangerous and stupid.
I think the negotiations to end this will involve either UN troops in an demilitarised zone (inside Russia) and those will come from European and NATO forces, or Ukraine being able to join EU/NATO. Both of those currently will set off the sabre rattling that Putin does to keep the west on the back foot. At some point this needs to end with Russia withdrawing it's forces totally and Ukraine being satisfied that Russia will be prevented from doing the same again. There's no point at which it makes any sense to use Nuclear weaponry. I think, unless he's being fed nonsense, Putin already knows that this isn't going to end the way he envisioned it, and throwing nukes around isn't going to change that for the better.
Which is utter bollocks.
Yes but lets not forget that one of the things that started this nightmare was Zelensky openly talking about Ukraine joining NATO which Putin was never going to accept. Had NATO ruled out the prospect of Ukraine joining from the outset we would probably be in a very different place today.
That's like saying it's okay for my neighbour to pre-emptively punch me in the face because I am planning on having a noisy BBQ in the summer. Muppet
Yes but lets not forget that one of the things that started this nightmare was Zelensky openly talking about Ukraine joining NATO
No it wasn't, it was a convenient excuse that Putin used to do the thing that he wanted to do. There is no scenario in which any of Russia aggression is Ukraine's fault. If NATO had declared that it was barring Ukraine from joining, Putin would've declared that he using that as the go ahead signal that he could do what he wants.
dazh
Yes but lets not forget that one of the things that started this nightmare was Zelensky openly talking about Ukraine joining NATO which Putin was never going to accept.
Sorry daz but no, just no, Zelensky wasn't even in power when Crimea/ Eastern Ukraine was invaded in, what? 2014.
Had NATO ruled out the prospect of Ukraine joining from the outset we would probably be in a very different place today.
Putin has no more right to control Ukrainian domestic or foreign policy than we have to control the Republic of Ireland's for instance.
one of the things that started this nightmare was Zelensky openly talking about Ukraine joining NATO which Putin was never going to accept.
It's not up to Putin who joins NATO.
ah, the problem with that red-line is that Article 5 doesn’t expressly mean that NATO has a joined response, it's left to individual countries to do what it deems as necessary - and that extends to but does not mean militarily. Putin knows this, so he can do what ever he likes in a hybrid warfare arena -such as crashing DHL planes (few of those recently), or poisoning people (novichock), leaving IED's in airports and trainstations (Gatwick and Euston this last weekend) - all aimed at disrupting life not too dissimilar to what ISIS where doing. All examples technically breech the threshold, but the individual states are allowed to decide what it should do about it!
Yes but lets not forget that one of the things that started this nightmare was Zelensky openly talking about Ukraine joining NATO which Putin was never going to accept.
Yeah cant see why Zelensky would want to join a defensive alliance against getting invaded.
Although given that Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 I am not sure it really adds up as a reason vs just Putin felt it his troops were in a position to finish the job.
Putin was actually worried about NATO encroachment
Its amazing how this bit of Kremlin propaganda was once far left myth is now a far right MAGA myth
NATO didnt force anyone to join up, the only people that held a gun to their head was Russia, every time they invaded a former soviet country saw a round of countries signing up -
• Poland, Hungary , Czech all joined up after the 1st Chechen War
• The next round of enlargement was after the 2nd Chechen War when Russia levelled Grozny (using tactics theyd repeat in Ukraine) Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia all jumped on.
• Then after the invasion of Ossetia and Georgia , Albania & Croatia joined.
• Russia invaded Donbass and Crimea - Macedonia & then Montenegro joined
• And after the latest invasion Finland & Sweden joined after years of trying to be neutral.
And Ukraine have been asking for years to join but the west kept stalling & delaying for fear of upsetting Russia (because we wanted cheap oil & gas) and look at the result, had we said yes the first time they asked then this war couldve been avoided
Muppet
Nice! Funny isn't it how I get all sort of abuse for earlier using the phrase 'idiots' but I'm guessing the same people won't bat an eyelid in this case.
Irregardless of the right and wrongs of of whether Ukraine should have been allowed to join NATO, the simple fact is that Putin was never going to allow it one way or the other. Yes he may have invaded even if NATO had ruled out Ukrainian membership, but leaving the possibility open guaranteed the outcome we see now. We simply don't know what would have happened if NATO had ruled it out, but my guess is that we would be in a very different place right now.
had we said yes the first time they asked then this war couldve been avoided
Think this is also true. NATO dithering and incompetence has played a large part in where we are today and NATO should acknowledge this in any negotiations to bring an end to the war. They won't though, they'll just allow it to grind on while the younger generation of Ukrainian men are wiped out so they can save face.
I reckon the reality is that there was no way to avoid Putin invading. Looks very much to me like a geo-political fait accompli. What's important now is how to bring it to an end before the west and Russia end up at war with each other.
ElShalimo
Full Member
That’s like saying it’s okay for my neighbour to pre-emptively punch me in the face because I am planning on having a noisy BBQ in the summer. Muppet
I fundamentally disagree with dazh on this single thread subject** but he's not definitely not a muppet.
Sorry, it's just the thread is better when it's not personalised imo, though I totally understand why we can all get a bit too invested in the discussions given what's going on over there.
We all agree its a bloody tragedy, we just disagree on how it came to this or the best way out of it for Ukraine.
** Many other threads on various topics I agree with a lot of what he says.
Sorry, it’s just the thread is better when it’s not personalised imo,
I totally agree but unfortunately that is always going to happen on this thread. Most contributors to this thread don't want to go beyond seeing the subject from a simple black and white perspective, which is why I think Daz is wasting his time, and why I rarely contribute, beyond the occasional observational comment.
the right and wrongs of of whether Ukraine should have been allowed to join NATO
Allowed by who? Ukraine is an independent country.
Anyway.. On the best way out of this... Is for European countries to do much as they are with the end game of beating Russia back and out of Ukraine.
For the sake of Ukrainians and somewhat selfishly for the future of general European security.
Putin didn't stop with the invasion and annexation of Crimea.. What possible reason would putin have to stop at taking yet more territory unless he is stopped?
The answer is none.
I have some Lithuanian friends, now settled in Spain... And they don't talk about Russia, and it's probably best not to ask.. If you made any sort of pro Russian comment to them, I doubt you would walk away with your teeth and kneecaps intact!
Most contributors on this thread don’t want to go beyond seeing the subject from a simple black and white perspective
This has always been where I'm coming from on this subject. No doubt many on here think I'm a Putin apologist or whatever but I'm really not. I have very little interest in pointing fingers and wailing about how evil Putin is or how unfair it is on the Ukrainians, and only interested in how it is brought to an end before the world goes up in a cloud of radioactive dust. I guess it probably is a waste of time but I'm not going to stop however much abuse I get.
Allowed by who?
You can't join NATO unless it's existing members agree to it.
What possible reason would putin have to stop at taking yet more territory unless he is stopped?
There are plenty. Given the human and economic cost of the Ukraine war I doubt Putin or anyone else in Russia has much appetite for a rerun. Each scenario needs to be judged by the facts on the ground and the positions of the various actors. Just because something happened before, it doesn't mean it will happen again. That's why comparisons with the appeasement of Hitler are so wide of the mark.
So you’re going to keep on trotting out lies
What lies? You think anyone with a different view is peddling lies? There's a name for that too.
Yes he may have invaded even if NATO had ruled out Ukrainian membership, but leaving the possibility open guaranteed the outcome we see now.
No it did not. There would have been only two options to avoid the war.
- Install a puppet Russian government in Ukraine to run it as poorly as Russia is being run and hence not set an alternate example.
- Ukraine being given immediate Nato membership.
He had already invaded prior to Nato membership being discussed. It was a major part of why Zelensky etc wanted it as an option.
So @dazh...
Your solution would be to throw Ukraine to the wolves and all the misery Russia will inflict on them?
Not only that, but you belive putin would only stop there?
If we ignore the plight of the Ukrainians and on a selfish level...and just let it become Russian territory...
What do you think would happen to the cost of living in Europe and by extension, the UK, given the *vast* agriculture industry in Ukraine?
Russia would love it.. They could then not only use gas as blackmail, but food supply too.
You are off your rocker. No offense intended.
once they get dubunked with actual facts
What facts? I mostly see opinions and assumptions on this thread with a healthy dose of whataboutery. Saying Putin will invade the west if he isn't stopped in Ukraine is an opinion not a fact.
Your solution would be to throw Ukraine to the wolves and all the misery Russia will inflict on them?
Where have I said that? I don't have a solution, and it's not up to me to come up with one. I want all the parties to come up with one though that doesn't end in us going to war with Russia. Seems to me a lot of people on this thread just want 'victory' at all costs no matter where it leads us.
What facts?
The ones that explain this in less words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
TLDR: Ukraine didn't make moves towards wanting to join NATO until after the annexation of Crimea, by, you guessed it, Russia.
What lies?
The ones that require time travel to make any sense.
Ukraine was already losing ground to Russia before Zelensky was elected. This isn't on him, or any moves he made to try and stop further Russian advancement though calls on existing protection agreements [ such as the Budapest Memorandum ], or attempts to get new ones [ stepping up NATO partnership and EU accession talks after Yanukovych had all but paused them ].
I used to be pretty sceptical of us having nukes, in an ideal world I still would be, but now? Having seen what happened to Ukraine after giving up it’s nuclear arsenal? Sod that.
This is where I'm at, reluctantly. I know that Ukraine really had no real choice but to disarm, and they did so as part of the only path towards peace in the region... but that path was entirely reliant on their old "partner" and other world powers not using the remaining nuclear capability as a threat to back up conventional destruction. I used to by all for total unilateral disarmament, but accept now that it can only go so far... complete nuclear disarmament can only safely come about though worldwide agreements, and strong policing of those agreements.
It doesnt take much digging to see that every time Russia invades another country other countries sign up to NATO, usually following referenda or elections of parties that promised to do explicitly that
Its almost as if a country run by a guy who has stated he wants to rebuild the USSR and has demonstrated time and again that hes willing to take them by force........ clarifies peoples minds
I think they only way of a lasting peace deal now would be for Ukraine to join NATO, otherwise Russia will simply keep rearming for the next invasion.
one though that doesn’t end in us going to war with Russia.
According to the red lines he's set at various points of this conflict he considers Russia is already at war with the west.
NATO dithering and incompetence has played a large part in where we are today
I think the collectives world response to his invasion of Crimea and the two South Eastern regions of Ukraine in 2014 was poor, and I agree that that decision undoubtedly made further invasions by Putin more likely, in that we have a responsibility to aid Ukraine. the response wasn't NATO's decision though. I still think the only just outcome is the total withdrawal of Russian military from the entirety of Ukraine (including Crimea) and UN resolutions to make it difficult for 'future' Russia to do the same again. Anything short of that is capitulation.
Ukraine was already losing ground to Russia before Zelensky was elected. This isn’t on him
I didn't say it was on Zelensky*, but Ukraine has been trying to join NATO for a long time, and NATO have been trying to get them to join for a long time. Since 2008 in fact...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia."
*edit: Well ok I did, but what I really meant was that Zelensky is the latest and most vocal in a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
No doubt many on here think I’m a Putin apologist or whatever but I’m really not.
I was going to post an hilarious meme in the style of Binners but decided I really can't be arsed.
why are Ukraine's NATO/EU ambitions singularly unrealistic when other former Soviet states - Poland, Hungry, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania (off the top of my head) and other countries that share a border with Russia (Finland, Sweden, Turkey) have joined either one or both?
Wow, been out for a bike ride (I know, right) and it's all kicked off in here! @dazh for the record, seeing as I called you out for your idiot comment the other day, the Muppet comment directed at you was equally out of order. There is no need for personal abuse at all. Having a different opinion is allowed, and when it's in the face of such a large consensus, it takes some courage, which I respect.
I don't think you're a Putin apologist, I get that you are genuinely concerned at the risks of a wider conflict, which is absolutely valid. I disagree with you fundamentally on a lot of your conclusions and thoughts on how we should deal with Russia, but my take and everyone else's carries no more weight than yours. I'm glad you are going to continue posting, alternative views challenging the consensus on here are healthy.
It would be great if the rest of us could be a bit more tolerant of alternative views. If this thread is just going to be an echo chamber where we agree on everything, what's the point?
why are Ukraine’s NATO/EU ambitions singularly unrealistic when other former Soviet states
I guess because Putin wasn't as bothered about them? It might not be what we like, but ultimately what he and Russia want is important. It would be lovely to ignore Putin and just do what we/Ukraine want but that's not how the world works is it?
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. Can you give some examples?
A quick google brings up Mike Pence and President Obama on Syria and also over Iran.
Which you could have easily found had you bothered to go look for yourself. But seems you need somebody to hold your hand and walk you through these things.
*edit: Well ok I did, but what I really meant was that Zelensky is the latest and most vocal in a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
Fair enough, that makes sense now, even if I don’t agree.
Interestingly that quote mentions Georgia, that is probably the next Crimea.
And it is still the lack of a firm and enforced defence agreement that has doomed Ukraine, not the seeking of outside help. We (especially those countries involved in supporting Ukraine’s military denuclearisation) have let the people of Ukraine down. And worse is yet to come I fear.
I'm partly agreeing with dazh.
Think this is also true. NATO dithering and incompetence has played a large part in where we are today and NATO should acknowledge this in any negotiations to bring an end to the war. They won’t though, they’ll just allow it to grind on while the younger generation of Ukrainian men are wiped out so they can save face.
I agree with what, but the motivation I think is more complex, with a healthy dose of a weakened Russia is good for us all.
a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
Why do you think it's unrealistic? Yes they had/have huge issues in society and politics to solve before they can join, but a sovereign state deciding for itself to form alliances seems perfectly reasonable, no matter how aspirational.
I'm also of the view that any appeasement of Putin would and still be completely useless. Putin has many times stated he aims to take back into Russian control many states they used to have influence over in USSR and previously in history*. The only way that they can do this is through manipulation, undermining or invasion. There's a long list of European countries (both geographically and politically) that he's got in mind. Any appeasement or weakness through capitulation would have led to an emboldened Russia, with more resources and finance, and more instability and invasions. Ukraine happened to be the one country they saw as weak, full of resources to plunder (humans included), and in the way physically from invading the next few countries.
Ukraine has no choice but to fight - because to capitulate would be easily as violent and endure due longer.
I have thought that the west needs to continue to step up. You only have to look at the countries 'next on the list' and next door to Russia and the huge efforts they are making to defend what they expect to be coming should Russia win.
I'm also aware of the huge interference Russia has in the UK at present. My staff at work happen to be married to military, civil aviation and technology folk - and all three are having significant issues around security and interference from Russia. I really want our press to pick this up, but it seems security suggests playing down some of the issues is needed.
*his history is all over the place, and ignores choice of alliance Vs oppression.
No, Ukraine Cannot join NATO, regardless.
It is Not up to America/NATO/EU etc to determine if a sovereign state has the right or not to join NATO, when another power is nearby.
It is exactly similar to the principle of Monroe Doctrine where no other power or influence is allowed near America, hence Cuba (and some other S.American states) suffers the consequences.
The notion of "peace" as determined by NATO is obsolete, if not dangerous, when another nation bordering another powerful nation wants to join NATO.
Peace can only be achieved if a buffer zone is established, and only in this context that Ukraine can achieve peace if they consider themselves as the buffer zone state between two powers, no matter how sovereign a state they can be.
It is all about Power and Power sets the rules. Look at history when half the world was part of the British empire and where Britain exerted their dominance over other nations in the name of "peace". In those days, nations that could not or had no ability to fight back got dominated. Hence, gunboat diplomacy. Fast forward to 21st century, we have rocket diplomacy.
In fact, if Ukraine remains "neutral" they can enjoy the best of both world but they think the grass is greener on the other side.
It is exactly similar to the principle of Monroe Doctrine where no other power or influence is allowed near America, hence Cuba (and some other S.American states) suffers the consequences.
Can you please explain the FOUR neighbouring countries that have been in NATO for the last 20 years?
Can you please explain the FOUR neighbouring countries that have been in NATO for the last 20 years?
Google is your friend.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm
What's your point?
edit: Those are not koala bear next door but Kamchatka bear so should naturally instil fear on those that come too close.
...but Ukraine has been trying to join NATO for a long time, and NATO have been trying to get them to join for a long time. Since 2008 in fact…
Daz, you've chosen the minutes from the two-day Bucharest summit on 3 April 2008. It doesn't give a balanced history, rather a snapshot
In fact, Ukraine agreed in 2010 not to pursue NATO membership, which was a policy of Russia-leaning then-President Yanukovych and supported by international Pew Research opinion polls https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/
The Kremlin would be very well aware of all of this and the vote in Ukraine's parliament to be a militarily non-aligned country was widely reported https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626
In fact, if Ukraine remains “neutral” they can enjoy the best of both world but they think the grass is greener on the other side.
They were neutral.
And yet Russia invaded in 2014 and 2021.
So I'm not sure that counts as 'enjoy'.
More ATACMS strikes in Kursk, this time an airbase.
That you’re testiculating. Again. At least it wasn’t incomprehensible babble this time.
As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it's naturally going to protect it's territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it's territory to eat all the salmons.
Well ok I did, but what I really meant was that Zelensky is the latest and most vocal in a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
Ukraine only abandoned militarily non-aligned country status in 2014 when Russia took Crimea illegally.
President Zelenskyy would rather be in NATO than become a nuclear-armed state, which are the two clubs that Russia heeds
They were neutral.
And yet Russia invaded in 2014 and 2021.
So I’m not sure that counts as ‘enjoy’.
If they were "neutral" there would be no invasion whatever. Too late now to argue that point.
Ukraine spooked the bear, the bear strikes back.
President Zelenskyy would rather be in NATO than become a nuclear-armed state, which are the two clubs that Russia heeds
So he decided to join another nuclear-armed group ...
See my last two posts ^^
They spooked the bear.
They spooked the bear.
But Russia would have invaded anyway. This is Putin's aim. A combination of annihilation and invasion of the countries he sees as "Russian".
Whether Ukraine did or did not seek to join NATO, whether it did what Russia told it too or not, Russia wanted Ukraine's territory, growing wealth, it's people, it's food, it's warm water port, it's proximity to other countries, the ability to be up against NATO and European country borders, and most of all to be seen as 'the Boss', back where Russians see themselves - leaders of the world.
So Ukraine was always going to be invaded IMO, just a matter of when and how.
The most important video on Ukraine | Prof. John Mearsheimer
I think a realist like Prof Mearsheimer can explain better than me.
You can check your facts against his.
Weird double post. Ignore.
I think a realist like Prof Mearsheimer can explain better than me.
The rationale for your last few posts has just become much clearer
His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?
I wouldn't go into such extreme as to describe his views as "nonsense" by comparing his argument to those presented on this forum or other platforms.
He certainly has the logic and credibility in his arguments, but not agreeing with him does not mean he is nonsense but merely another point of views.
So far I have not seen many (any) convincing "debunked" arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.
His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?
Hopefully not, but this is the internet.. it's quite interesting though, to see just how baseless some opinions are. Is Chewk the same person as Dazeh?
They seem very alligned on certain topics.
Daz, you’ve chosen the minutes from the two-day Bucharest summit on 3 April 2008. It doesn’t give a balanced history, rather a snapshot
In fact, Ukraine agreed in 2010 not to pursue NATO membership, which was a policy of Russia-leaning then-President Yanukovych
And you think that a Western backed coup to overthrow Yanukovych provided reassurance to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO?
A what now? Even if correct, Russia is in no position to get butt-hurt over election interference.
So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all
Well for one thing he spent a long time telling everyone that Putin definitely wouldn't invade Ukraine
As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons
You are Eric Cantona and I claim my five pounds.
So, what's the 'End Game' here?
What's trying to be accomplished?
That's the big question.
Slight hijack.
You are Eric Cantona and I claim my five pound
Eric Cantona is a philosopher..
I am afraid there are no seagulls following the trawlers begging for scraps there, but a bear swipe.
As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons
I reckon Chewy nails it. It's about markets and competition over these markets. The United States and its allies were perfectly happy when Russia was ruled by a corrupt and chronic alcoholic who rigged elections and allowed gangsters to run amok murdering their business rivals.
No one became a billionaire in Boris Yeltsin's Russia without being deeply involved in criminal activity. And yet the United States loved him because the chaos, criminality, and the damage that he did to Russia, served their interests. The relative stability that Vladimir Putin brought to Russia after Yeltsin did not.
The problem for the United States and its allies is that Putin is the wrong sort of crook for them, and one over which they have no control. He's basically Victor Orban on steroids and with nuclear weapons.
The United States government couldn't give a toss about the Ukraine people, since when have they cared about a people living under a brutal regime? And they certainly don't care whether Ukraine is independent or not beyond how it might affect their interests.
Yeltsin never invaded his neighbour and killed 10s of thousands for no good reason. Putins not like Orban he’s more like Hitler.
Well for one thing he spent a long time telling everyone that Putin definitely wouldn’t invade Ukraine
President Zelensky said the same thing only two days prior to Russia crossing the border.