nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg admits and boasts about nato provoking Putin to invade

[TagliatelliMonster]

They have been offered to join NATO

No they haven't.
They have ASKED to join NATO.

, which is to Russia's dislike.

Yes, because Russia wants to be able to blackmail its neighbours with military intervention.
Which they can't do if they are a member of a powerful defensive alliance.

And yes, I am not that bothered or interested in this subject

It shows.

but am appalled by the prospect of a nuclear holocaust which can be very nasty.

Everybody is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course they want to join...
Zelensky comes to Brussels 24 / 7 asking to join the EU.

And they are welcom, if they meet requirements.

If they join the European Union, neither the Yanukovichs, nor the Zelenskyys will be allowed to become presidents.
Because they both forbid freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Or so you claim at least. You should ease up on the Russian propaganda though.

Please...no double standards, monsieur.
Pas de deux poids et deux mésures...

I don't have any double standards.

Impossible. Most of them are German-speaking people.
The first party is the Suedtiroler Volkspartei.

I asked "what if".
I get it. You don't want to answer.

We are not that stupid.
We don't waste human lives for the sake of a small region.

So you would allow military occupation against the will of the people?
This precedent would set the world in flames.

You have no clue.

 

[exchemist]

Because it was in the middle of the cold war.

Also, as I understand it, the whole situation was quite different. The Cuban missiles were strategic ICBMs, to be used against the USA in a nuclear war, not conventional tactical military equipment for use in defence against an invasion, which is what is at issue with NATO in Europe.

Nobody in NATO has never had any intention of putting strategic nuclear weapons into any of the non-nuclear NATO countries.

(I believe, in the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy agreed with Khrushchev a quid pro quo which was that the US would take its nuclear missiles out of Turkey, though this was soft-pedalled in the US media.)

 

[Estro Felino]

And they are welcom, if they meet requirements.

I predict that Zelenskyy will move to some beautiful Caribbean island, you know, those with the golden sand and emerald green palms.
Also known as tax havens.

So Ukraine will elect a very democratic president who will be aligned with the values of the European Union, favored by the friendship with their neighbors, Romania and Poland.

Or so you claim at least. You should ease up on the Russian propaganda though.

Come on.
Even stones know there is no freedom of speech in Ukraine.
Ukrainians flee that country to Germany and to other EU countries because they crave for freedom.

I don't have any double standards.

Yet you believe Zelenskyy is perfect, don't you?

I asked "what if".
I get it. You don't want to answer.

If they want to remain in Italy, a referendum will ascertain that.
In that case, there is the sanction methods. A war can be waged even without weapons...and without killing soldiers.

So you would allow military occupation against the will of the people?
This precedent would set the world in flames.

For the record...Donbas people want to stay with Russia.
The last elections have confirmed it.
So it's Ukrainians who occupy Donbas against the will of the people.
It's them the occupiers.
Vox populi, Vox Dei.
Golos naroda, golos Boga (in Russian)

You have no clue.

I do.

 

[lukethethird]

And yet, you seem keen to suggest that NATO oughtn't to be allowed to "expand eastward". You're clearly suggesting that Ukraine should not have been allowed to join NATO.


I agree. That's bad. Russia shouldn't do that.


Boy, I wish you'd just finish with this statement right here, but I fear you're going to go on to say something that explicitly excuses Russia's aggression...


Boom. Bang on cue.

It doesn't matter. Russia don't get to determine that. They don't get to bully neighbouring countries and meddle in their affairs through threat of force. This is not something you would EVER countenance as being a valid argument if it were made by America as an excuse for any of its imperialist actions, so why on earth do you constantly bring it up as a rationale behind Russia's invasion?


This is just total nonsense that is not even remotely comparable to what's going on in Ukraine. I'm sick of you drawing this false equivalence when I have taken every pain in explaining to you that NATO is a defensive military pact, not an offensive arm of American imperialism. A state becoming a missile base for a country explicitly for the purpose of attacking another state is completely different to a state joining a military alliance in order to prevent themselves being invaded by another state. Nobody is threatening Russia. They're a nuclear power. The idea that Russia felt genuinely threatened by countries joining NATO is garbage, and nobody had been talking about invading Russia. Again, they're a nuclear power. That would end the world.

Once again, you express lip service to the idea of hating Putin, but you are all too familiar with - and willing to repeat - his outright lies.


Ukraine wasn't "put up to it". They chose to do it because they have a violent, imperialist state on their border THREATENING TO INVADE THEM.

Ukraine is benefiting, because, again, they have a violent, imperialist state on their border THREATENING TO INVADE THEM.


Another statement that you REALLY should have finished on, but yet you continue...


The US hasn't done that, in this case. Russia has. Russia is the one who has been using force to meddle with Ukraine's sovereignty (they LITERALLY ANNEX TERRITORY AND FUNDED AND SUPPORTED SEPARATIST MILITIAS). Weird how you only care about it when you feel America does it, despite the clear and unambiguous history of Russia being the antagonists in this case.


Says the guy who wants me to "bear in mind" that US is powerful and has influence, but wants me to totally forget literally everything Russia has done to Ukraine for the past two decades, and wants to suggest that powerful nations have the right - by threat of force - to dictate the will of smaller nations on their borders that they are threatening to invade.

"I'm super against powerful countries meddling with and manipulating smaller countries, that's why I think NATO should not have considered allowing Ukraine in, because Russia said they shouldn't or else they'd invade, and I somehow blame the USA for this."

Totally and completely insane and backwards.

Powerful countries do what they want. Nato bombed Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Syria, Libya because they could, no excuse for it, why do you keep talking up excuses and justification? There is no such thing as a just war. The US destroyed Iraq because they wanted to steal Iraq's oil and that is what they did. No justification for it, and nobody could do a thing about it. Russia invaded Ukraine, no justification for it. It is not me suggesting Russia sees nato as a threat, talk to the director of the CIA, take it up with him, he's the one that says, among other heads of state for the last 30 years in the US, Europe and Russia, that Ukraine and Georgia is a read line. You and your silly talk about Russia can swivel, well yeah if you want war and can't get enough of it, I suppose it can.

You don't pay attention to world affairs or how the world works, you just want to see this war continue until there is what you call justification, guess what, there is no justification. The world is run by thugs and all that can be done is to deal with the cards we have been dealt with. Riddle me this, Kiev has been shelling Donbas since Donbas became a breakaway state in 2014, what makes you think the people of Donbas want to rejoin with Ukraine and be ruled by Kiev?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Powerful countries do what they want.

I agree. And that's bad.

Nato bombed Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Syria, Libya because they could, no excuse for it,

Oh? "Because they could"? "No excuse for it"? Gee, that sure sounds like you completely skipped past a lot of stuff. But, surely, there could be no rational excuse for you to do so, right? They just did it for no reason whatsoever without any rhyme, reason or justification, and that's good enough for you...

...

OH WAIT!

Bosnian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Banja Luka incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Srebrenica massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Douma chemical attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War crimes in the Kosovo War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Libyan civil war (2011) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arab Spring - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wow! That sure is a lot of stuff you deliberately missed out, including multiple instances of governments oppressing, gassing and bombing their own people. But, nah. Clearly NATO just did it for the fun of it. No reason whatsoever.

why do you keep talking up excuses and justification?

Because you keep coming up with excuses and justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

There is no such thing as a just war.

That depends. I would argue that a defensive war or a war of intervention can be just. I would certainly say that the allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe was a pretty unambiguously justified, and I would say Ukrainians fighting against their invaders from Russia are justified.

The US destroyed Iraq because they wanted to steal Iraq's oil and that is what they did. No justification for it, and nobody could do a thing about it.

Yes. And that's why I have always opposed the war in Iraq and protested it vehemently.

Russia invaded Ukraine, no justification for it.

That's not the line you've been feeding us for thread after thread, now. I can find multiple instances of you explicitly excusing the invasion, or calling it a "trap" that "Putin fell for". You definitely do not maintain the facade of someone who wants to imply the war has no justification.

It is not me suggesting Russia sees nato as a threat, talk to the director of the CIA, take it up with him, he's the one that says, among other heads of state for the last 30 years in the US, Europe and Russia, that Ukraine and Georgia is a read line.

You're not reading what I write. Ukraine and Georgia are a "red line" because Russia WANTED TO INVADE THOSE TERRITORIES, not because Russia felt "threatened" by NATO's presence there. This point has been made clear multiple times.

You and your silly talk about Russia can swivel, well yeah if you want war and can't get enough of it, I suppose it can.

Once again, YOU are the one arguing that Russia gets to decide which nations on its borders get to enter defensive treaties. You are explicitly promoting and defending foreign intervention and producing excuses for Russia's invasion.

You don't pay attention to world affairs

Says the guy who summed up NATO's interventions in Libya, Syria and Bosnia as "because they could, no excuse for it", while suspiciously missing out multiple instances of actual genocide, government oppression and the bombings of their own people. Yeah, totally. I'M the one not paying attention to world affairs. Sure. Whatever you say, boss.

or how the world works, you just want to see this war continue until there is what you call justification,

Once again, I'm the anti-war one. You're the pro-war one, because you believe Russia has the right to enforce its will on its neighbours, and gets to threaten force when it doesn't gets it's way. YOU are the one arguing that because Russia is strong, they get to determine which smaller countries on their borders have a right to self-determination and defence. That is the logical conclusion of your position.

guess what, there is no justification.

There's justification for supporting Ukraine.

The world is run by thugs and all that can be done is to deal with the cards we have been dealt with. Riddle me this, Kiev has been shelling Donbas since Donbas became a breakaway state in 2014, what makes you think the people of Donbas want to rejoin with Ukraine and be ruled by Kiev?

Once again, you DELIBERATELY MISS OUT A GOOD CHUNK OF HISTORY. Let me guess: you probably believe Ukraine was shelling the Donbas "for the fun of it"?

Oh, wait! The Donbas was occupied by Russian separatists who attempted to annex the land under the explicit instructions of the Kremlin following the exile of Putin's puppet regime in Kiev.

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russian separatist forces in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again, you conveniently leave out extremely important historical details in order to cast Ukraine - a country that has been defending itself against the direct military intervention of Russia since 2014 - as the villains of RUSSIA'S INVASION AND ANNEXATION.

I'll say it again to remind everyone: you are an imperialist.

 

[lukethethird]

Because the USSR was literally an expansionist regime that enacted invasions in multiple neighbouring countries and was literally threatening to escalate nuclear war with the US.


You mean, that agreement that never made it into any treaties whatsoever? That agreement?

Ah yes, you're right. We should tear up all the SIGNED AGREEMENTS that Russia took a dump all over when they invaded Ukraine; those are clearly irrelevant. But a "VERBAL AGREEMENT" that was never seen in any signed agreements and thus neither side had made any meaningful or official declaration to respect; that's golden. Can't break that.

It wouldn't have made any difference if the well documented agreement, see Home | National Security Archive was signed, the US has a world wide reputation for not honoring treaties signed or unsigned so your argument is mute.


One of the dangerous consequences of violating the Iran deal is a loss of credibility for the US, say critics of Donald Trump’s decision including former president Barack Obama. Iran and all other parties have respected the deal’s terms, they point out, making the US look like an unreliable international partner.


Well, the US is an unreliable international partner—and it has long been one, even before the current administration pulled out from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris agreement on climate change, and threatened to end NAFTA. History is dotted with treaties that the US has signed but not ratified, signed and then unsigned, and even refused to sign after pushing everyone else to sign.

Capriciousness about international treaties is an old US tradition. It starts with the country’s very creation: hundreds of treaties signed with Native American tribes that were either broken, or not ratified. Today, the US is one of the countries to have ratified the fewest number of international human rights treaties—of the 18 agreements passed by the UN, America has only ratified five. https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-international-agreements-the-us-has-broken-before-the-iran-deal

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It wouldn't have made any difference if the well documented agreement, see Home | National Security Archive was signed, the US has a world wide reputation for not honoring treaties signed or unsigned so your argument is mute.

How is the argument mute just because a country other than Russia has done what Russia is doing? How does that logic follow? We can unilaterally condemn both - the point is that you are hung up on the apparent importance of this EXTREMELY UNOFFICIAL claim of a promise, but don't seem to care about any OFFICIAL agreements Russia is breaking. You're just trying to distract from the clear and unambiguous wrongness of your own position by pointing fingers elsewhere. It's not going to help you.

 

[lukethethird]

I agree. And that's bad.


Oh? "Because they could"? "No excuse for it"? Gee, that sure sounds like you completely skipped past a lot of stuff. But, surely, there could be no rational excuse for you to do so, right? They just did it for no reason whatsoever without any rhyme, reason or justification, and that's good enough for you...

...

OH WAIT!

Bosnian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Banja Luka incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Srebrenica massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Douma chemical attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War crimes in the Kosovo War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Libyan civil war (2011) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arab Spring - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wow! That sure is a lot of stuff you deliberately missed out, including multiple instances of governments oppressing, gassing and bombing their own people. But, nah. Clearly NATO just did it for the fun of it. No reason whatsoever.


Because you keep coming up with excuses and justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.


That depends. I would argue that a defensive war or a war of intervention can be just. I would certainly say that the allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe was a pretty unambiguously justified, and I would say Ukrainians fighting against their invaders from Russia are justified.


Yes. And that's why I have always opposed the war in Iraq and protested it vehemently.


That's not the line you've been feeding us for thread after thread, now. I can find multiple instances of you explicitly excusing the invasion, or calling it a "trap" that "Putin fell for". You definitely do not maintain the facade of someone who wants to imply the war has no justification.


You're not reading what I write. Ukraine and Georgia are a "red line" because Russia WANTED TO INVADE THOSE TERRITORIES, not because Russia felt "threatened" by NATO's presence there. This point has been made clear multiple times.


Once again, YOU are the one arguing that Russia gets to decide which nations on its borders get to enter defensive treaties. You are explicitly promoting and defending foreign intervention and producing excuses for Russia's invasion.


Says the guy who summed up NATO's interventions in Libya, Syria and Bosnia as "because they could, no excuse for it", while suspiciously missing out multiple instances of actual genocide, government oppression and the bombings of their own people. Yeah, totally. I'M the one not paying attention to world affairs. Sure. Whatever you say, boss.


Once again, I'm the anti-war one. You're the pro-war one, because you believe Russia has the right to enforce its will on its neighbours, and gets to threaten force when it doesn't gets it's way. YOU are the one arguing that because Russia is strong, they get to determine which smaller countries on their borders have a right to self-determination and defence. That is the logical conclusion of your position.


There's justification for supporting Ukraine.


Once again, you DELIBERATELY MISS OUT A GOOD CHUNK OF HISTORY. Let me guess: you probably believe Ukraine was shelling the Donbas "for the fun of it"?

Oh, wait! The Donbas was occupied by Russian separatists who attempted to annex the land under the explicit instructions of the Kremlin following the exile of Putin's puppet regime in Kiev.

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russian separatist forces in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again, you conveniently leave out extremely important historical details in order to cast Ukraine - a country that has been defending itself against the direct military intervention of Russia since 2014 - as the villains of RUSSIA'S INVASION AND ANNEXATION.

I'll say it again to remind everyone: you are an imperialist.

You left this out:

On the 10th anniversary of the bombing campaign, Ian Bancroft wrote in The Guardian: "Though justified by apparently humanitarian considerations, NATO's bombing of Serbia succeeded only in escalating the Kosovo crisis into a full-scale humanitarian catastrophe"; citing a post-war report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe he concluded that it is "widely acknowledged that the bulk of the ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred after the start of [NATO]'s campaign". Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

All support for nato bombing campaigns run along political lines. No surprise there.

Interesting how you support bombing when it's the good guys that are doing the bombing, well, not interesting really.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I predict that Zelenskyy will move to some beautiful Caribbean island, you know, those with the golden sand and emerald green palms.
Also known as tax havens.

So Ukraine will elect a very democratic president who will be aligned with the values of the European Union, favored by the friendship with their neighbors, Romania and Poland.

Your predictions mean nothing to me as you have demonstrated time and again that you have a very skewed view of reality.
Having said that, Zelensky was democratically elected.

Come on.
Even stones know there is no freedom of speech in Ukraine.
Ukrainians flee that country to Germany and to other EU countries because they crave for freedom.

They flee because an imperialist, expansionist, corrupt, facist foreign force is invading their land and trying to bomb it into oblivion.
They aren't feeling from Zelensky. They are fleeing from Russian bullets and rockets.

Yet you believe Zelenskyy is perfect, don't you?

Strawman more, strawmanner.
I never said any such thing

If they want to remain in Italy, a referendum will ascertain that.
In that case, there is the sanction methods. A war can be waged even without weapons...and without killing soldiers.

Russia just demonstrated the opposite.

For the record...Donbas people want to stay with Russia.
The last elections have confirmed it.

Elections held at gunpoint, are not correct elections.

So it's Ukrainians who occupy Donbas against the will of the people.

You've been reading to much Russian propaganda.

I do.

You don't. You get your intel from Russian propaganda.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You left this out:

On the 10th anniversary of the bombing campaign, Ian Bancroft wrote in The Guardian: "Though justified by apparently humanitarian considerations, NATO's bombing of Serbia succeeded only in escalating the Kosovo crisis into a full-scale humanitarian catastrophe"; citing a post-war report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe he concluded that it is "widely acknowledged that the bulk of the ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred after the start of [NATO]'s campaign". Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia

All support for nato bombing campaigns run along political lines. No surprise there.

GASP! A political opinion! I must flee!

Well, surely I must be wrong with regards to your contention that these bombings were done "because they could" and all those Wikipedia articles I listed that detailed all of the multitudes of circumstances that lead up to NATO's bombings must surely evaporate into thin air following the singular opinion of this Guardian article. Woe is me.

Interesting how you support bombing when it's the good guys that are doing the bombing, well, not interesting really.

Could you please point to a single example of me "supporting bombing"? My contention was that you nakedly lied about NATO doing them for no reason whatsoever, WHILE IGNORING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES THAT NATO WERE EXPLICITLY RESPONDING TO. At no point have I ever claimed the bombings were all justified or all effective.

And once again you divert from the discussion by hyper-focusing on the one political opinion you find that you can use to further your deranged narrative. You still have yet to answer for or explain your repeated lies about NATO, your deliberate omission of multiple histories, your outright refusal to acknowledge the Russian separatists in the Donbas, and your general dishonesty with regards to world history.

 

[lukethethird]

GASP! A political opinion! I must flee!

Well, surely I must be wrong and your contention that these bombings were done for "fun" and all those Wikipedia articles I listed that detailed all of the multitudes of circumstances that lead up to NATO's bombings must surely evaporate into thin air following the singular opinion of this Guardian article. Woe is me.


Could you please point to a single example of me "supporting bombing"? My contention was that you nakedly lied about NATO doing them for no reason whatsoever, WHILE IGNORING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES THAT NATO WERE EXPLICITLY RESPONDING TO. At no point have I ever claimed the bombings were all justified or all effective.

And once again you divert from the discussion by hyper-focusing on the one political opinion you find that you can use to further your deranged narrative.

Oh brother, because we all know that bombings are done for humanitarian reasons, you must love it. Oh, and bombs bring about freedoms and democracy, we can't leave that out.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh brother, because we all know that bombings are done for humanitarian reasons, you must love it.

When the bombings are carried out against political or military targets that are genociding, gassing or oppressing their own people, yes, actually. They can be. I'm not of the opinion that ANY form of intervention is bad in all cases, because I'm not a child. I understand that the reasons and justifications for these things can be complicated and - yes - even justified in some cases. Unlike you, I believe in nuance, and I believe in acknowledging history rather than lying about it either by omission or explicitly stating that something had "no excuse" when there was.

Oh, and bombs bring about freedoms and democracy, we can't leave that out.

Could you perhaps stop listening to the voices in your head long enough to respond to what I ACTUALLY write?

 

[ajay0]

Well that is quite a different matter - and is also false.

They have both requested membership of NATO (now why might that be, do you think?) and their requests are being considered, at least in principle. However it has been made clear to both that the conditions for them to join are not yet met.

Nato has issued a statement agreeing that "these countries will become members of NATO" at some point , with the U.S backing their admission even if they do not possess the necessary qualifications with respect to democratic norms.

This is the main reason for Russia's invasion, as Putin states that in the event of Ukraine joining NATO, the US can place wmd targetting moscow which gives it a strategic advantage over Russia in a war.

Also we have to take into account the events that brought down the russia-friendly government and replaced it with that of anti-russian and pro-west government of Zhelensky's which shows internal meddling by foreign powers to increase their sphere of influence, and bring distrust between the neighbors that have a common culture and heritage.

What you seem determined to overlook is that these countries want to join, in order to protect themselves from Russia. This all comes about due to Russia's threatening behaviour.

The threats started after Georgia and Ukraine wanted to join Nato, a military alliance, which would bring it to the very borders of Russia which is strategically advantageous to US-NATO . Russian insecurities are increased further by the fact of historical invasions by european nations , with examples being that of France and Nazi germany seeking russia's vast resources. Around 25 million soviets were killed during the nazi invasion.

I have stated earlier that the UN can create a buffer zone amongst Russia's neighbors with neutral UN members safeguarding them if needed, instead of NATO. This could reduce the tensions and threat of a full-fledged nuclear war that can wipe out the combatants totally.

Clearly a dispassionate approach is needed to defuse the situation and neutral countries can play a key role here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nato has issued a statement agreeing that "these countries will become members of NATO" at some point , with the U.S backing their admission even if they do not possess the necessary qualifications with respect to democratic norms.

This is the main reason for Russia's invasion, as Putin states that in the event of Ukraine joining NATO, the US can place wmd targetting moscow which gives it a strategic advantage over Russia in a war.

This is baseless nonsense. The USA is not at war with Russia. Nobody is threatening to invade Russia. Russia is a nuclear power - the world is very aware of the fact that an attack or invasion of Russia would likely send us on the fast track to total nuclear oblivion. The idea that Russia has a genuine fear of having American weapons on their border is absurd. The reason Russia doesn't want NATO to expand into those territories is because it would have prevented them from invading. Now that Russia HAS invaded, this can no longer be in question.

Also we have to take into account the events that brought down the russia-friendly government and replaced it with that of anti-russian and pro-west government of Zhelensky's which shows internal meddling by foreign powers to increase their sphere of influence, and bring distrust between the neighbors that have a common culture and heritage.

Firstly, "common culture and heritage" is a blood and soil argument. I don't care for ethno-nationalist apologia, and you should be above it. Ukraine is a sovereign state and you can't just ignore that because of cultural makeup or national heritage. The people of Ukraine want to be Ukrainian, and Ukrainians wants national sovereignty from Russia.

Secondly, Yanukovych wasn't ousted by America - he was ousted by a popular revolt against his policies and his crackdown on the opposition parties and protesters. America supported the protests because, obviously, America wants Ukraine to be more friendly to the west, but it was far from "meddling". It certainly wasn't as much "meddling" as Russia had done, and continues to do, to Ukraine, that included:

Providing troops to help suppress and FIRE ON protesters (SOURCES: Investigators Say Yanukovych Gave 'Criminal Order' To Kill Protesters, Ukraine: Yanukovych ordered snipers to shoot, Russia: Yanukovich asked Putin to use force to save Ukraine)
Providing Yanukovych with asylum after he fled Ukraine after KILLING PROTESTERS and protecting him from arrest for treason for seeking Russian aid in killing his own people (SOURCES: https://tass.com/russia/777859, Fugitive Ukrainian president shows up in Moscow)
Funding and supporting separatist militias in order to seize territory in the Donbas (SOURCES: Ukraine crisis: 'Thousands of Russians' fighting in east, Report MH17)

Gee, I wonder why the idea of closer ties with Russia could possibly be unpopular with the people of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the most any can come up with to indicate American meddling with Maidan is a completely mundane phone conversation and American diplomats handing out snacks to the protesters. It seems pretty odd that people would be more upset about American diplomats giving cookies to protesters than they are about Russian agents shooting those same protesters. Weird, that.

The threats started after Georgia and Ukraine wanted to join Nato, a military alliance, which would bring it to the very borders of Russia which is strategically advantageous to US-NATO . Russian insecurities are increased further by the fact of historical invasions by european nations , with examples being that of France and Nazi germany seeking russia's vast resources. Around 25 million soviets were killed during the nazi invasion.

Once again, equating two completely dis-analogous scenarios. NATO is not Nazi Germany. They are not expansionist or imperialist. They are a defensive and reactive military treaty organisation. They have never once, IN OVER FIFTY YEARS, annexed or claimed territory. They are not threatening Russia. What they threaten is Russia's military expansion. That's all. That's what Russia is upset about. They want NATO to stay clear of the small countries on heir borders because RUSSIA WANTS TO MEDDLE WITH AND CONTROL THOSE COUNTRIES. A cursory glance at the history over the last two decades of those states on the Russian border would confirm this to anyone. Those countries that aren't already puppet states of Russia have a long history of being interfered with and threatened by Russia.

I have stated earlier that the UN can create a buffer zone amongst Russia's neighbors with neutral UN members safeguarding them if needed, instead of NATO. This could reduce the tensions and threat of a full-fledged nuclear war that can wipe out the combatants totally.

Or, Russia could stop invading and annexing its neighbours. That would also solve the problem.

Clearly a dispassionate approach is needed to defuse the situation and neutral countries can play a key role here.

Cool. Now, in order to reach that defusal, what shall we do in the meantime? Should Russia be allowed to roll over Ukraine without support or not?

 

[Glaurung]

This is the main reason for Russia's invasion, as Putin states that in the event of Ukraine joining NATO, the US can place wmd targetting moscow which gives it a strategic advantage over Russia in a war.

That's the pretext, but it's a lie.

Russia's military has shown itself to be so incompetent that NATO would crush Russia in any conventional conflict. At this point I doubt even Putin has any delusions otherwise. NATO does not need Ukraine to beat Russia. (Russia can't even beat Ukraine). Furthermore, America can already nuke Russia. If a nuclear war were to happen Moscow and every Russian city of size would be doomed anyway. That's why Putin's claims are bogus. Keeping NATO out of Ukraine wouldn't save Russia and its cities against ICBMs.

Russia objects to NATO because Russia desires the ability to intimidate and eventually reconquer its historical holdings. Russia wants a relatively defenseless eastern Europe not because Russia fears a western attack but because it desires small weak vassal states to bully. Being able to bully small neighbors is the only thing that makes Russia feel important and Russia is mad that the west has taken that away from it.

Instead of obsessing over its dead empire Russia could have joined the modern world of nation states. But it's too corrupt and kleptocratic to be a positive force in the world. Out of a myopic hatred of the west we have people defending a warmongering crony state. Putin and his sympathizers (both left and right) are just trying to save Ukraine from the evils of 'fascist' liberal democracy.

Of course Russia presents itself as the aggrieved defender, but no one who isn't ideologically motivated otherwise buys it. It is morally bankrupt to make excuses for Russia and its murderous, irredentist war. Russia is to blame for its evil decision and no one else.

 

[exchemist]

Nato has issued a statement agreeing that "these countries will become members of NATO" at some point , with the U.S backing their admission even if they do not possess the necessary qualifications with respect to democratic norms.

This is the main reason for Russia's invasion, as Putin states that in the event of Ukraine joining NATO, the US can place wmd targetting moscow which gives it a strategic advantage over Russia in a war.

Also we have to take into account the events that brought down the russia-friendly government and replaced it with that of anti-russian and pro-west government of Zhelensky's which shows internal meddling by foreign powers to increase their sphere of influence, and bring distrust between the neighbors that have a common culture and heritage.



The threats started after Georgia and Ukraine wanted to join Nato, a military alliance, which would bring it to the very borders of Russia which is strategically advantageous to US-NATO . Russian insecurities are increased further by the fact of historical invasions by european nations , with examples being that of France and Nazi germany seeking russia's vast resources. Around 25 million soviets were killed during the nazi invasion.

I have stated earlier that the UN can create a buffer zone amongst Russia's neighbors with neutral UN members safeguarding them if needed, instead of NATO. This could reduce the tensions and threat of a full-fledged nuclear war that can wipe out the combatants totally.

Clearly a dispassionate approach is needed to defuse the situation and neutral countries can play a key role here.

This is ballocks.

The US keeps a residue of nuclear weapons in only 5 NATO countries: Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. These are all old-fashioned gravity bombs, not missiles. They are not really needed, since ICBMs launched from submarines or the mainland of NATO nuclear powers have long since become perfectly sufficient as deterrents. However the optics of removing these ancient weapons might look like US disengagement from European defence, so they are left where they are. Details here:Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Mapping U.S. and Russian Deployments

There is no plan to install nuclear missiles in any more NATO countries, for the same reason - they would be redundant: Russia can be incinerated from the US or from submarines as it is. Such weapons are useless for aggressive war (as Putin has recently had reconfirmed, much to his annoyance), since a nuclear first strike would automatically trigger devastating retaliation (the MAD doctrine). Nuclear weapons are thus useful only as a defence, i.e. the ability to retaliate deters aggression.

So the whole argument is just bull**** for gullible idiots, that Putin himself doesn't believe for a minute.

As for Ukraine's government, it is an independent country, entitled to choose its government by democratic means. The popularity of Zelensky and the willingness of Ukrainians to give their lives in defence of their homeland against Russian barbarity is now beyond any question. Attempting to question Zelensky's legitimacy is absurd in the extreme. The notion that Ukraine feels kinship with Russia was always a bit of a myth, and is now dead and buried for ever as a result of Putin's invasion.

(I have a Ukrainian family next door, by the way, so I have some insight into how they feel.)

 

[lukethethird]

When the bombings are carried out against political or military targets that are genociding, gassing or oppressing their own people, yes, actually. They can be. I'm not of the opinion that ANY form of intervention is bad in all cases, because I'm not a child. I understand that the reasons and justifications for these things can be complicated and - yes - even justified in some cases. Unlike you, I believe in nuance, and I believe in acknowledging history rather than lying about it either by omission or explicitly stating that something had "no excuse" when there was.


Could you perhaps stop listening to the voices in your head long enough to respond to what I ACTUALLY write?

I have come to the conclusion that you are in fact a child and that you glorify war. Nato bombing is good and justified in your shallow opinion and anyone that does not agree with you is an imperialist. Putin invaded to stop the civil war as well and he ended up causing even more unnecessary deaths just as Nato does. It makes no difference what side war mongers are on, they are all the same and you glorify the ones on the good side, pathetic.

 

[exchemist]

I have come the a conclusion that you are in fact a child and that you glorify war. Nato bombing is good and justified in your shallow opinion and anyone that does not agree with you is an imperialist. Putin invaded to stop the civil war as well and he ended up causing even more unnecessary deaths just as Nato does. It makes no difference what side war mongers are on, they are all the same and you glorify the ones on the good side, pathetic.

Ballocks.

Putin invaded to annex the country. There was no civil war to stop, other than the skirmishing that he had fomented on the border.

 

[lukethethird]

Ballocks.

Putin invaded to annex the country. There was no civil war to stop, other than the skirmishing that he had fomented on the border.

Sure thing sherlock. Goes to show what you have been paying attention to. I don't care to glorify war but you are free to point out the good guys in all of this as if there are any, and decide anyone that doesn't agree with you is an imperialist, as if I care.