Actually, let's not forget that Saddam DID have a WMD's and a nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. In fact, what then later was found out that Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" had destroyed the last remnants of Saddams WMD's. So it was false, but not totally made up. — ssu

If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. I simply cannot second guess the world's intelligence bureaus.

In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. From all the media and rhetoric that has spilled out, it appears that the NATO wants to diminish Russia if not destroy it, or reduce its international influence to that or Romania or Botswana (just two countries that come to mind)

Lindsey Graham stunned netizens and caused US officials to scramble on Thursday as he suggested to Fox News and social media that the “Russian people” must “fix” the situation in Ukraine by assassinating their president. — Sputnik

Noam Chomsky weighs in: they are all war crimes. Iraq, Ukraine...

Noam Chomsky: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation. — Noam Chomsky

The Iraq invasion was a textbook example of the crimes for which Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, pure unprovoked aggression. And a punch in Russia’s face. — Noam Chomsky

Strong words indeed.

I remember that song "hope the Russians love their children too". There was never any doubt. Remember the words of John F. Kennedy: "We all breathe the same air. We all love our children" .
(I quote from memory).Khrushchev and Kennedy are both gone now.

Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences. — baker

Watch movies and shows critically, and you can see the things they are concerned about. After a while, it gets tiring. It is not just about foreign influences but subtle mind control. But I was manipulated to say that by conspiracy theories. See how it works?

Movies are about superheroes and conflict, conflict violence, use of force to solve problems, wealth, fame or love. The last one is not so bad.

Anyone seen a good anti-war movie recently?

Top 5 movies

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls093928963/

1.Dune:

Feature adaptation of Frank Herbert's science fiction novel about the son of a noble family entrusted with the protection of the most valuable asset and most vital element in the galaxy.

Theme: Wealth

2. Drive My Car (2021)

Theme: Love

3. The French Dispatch (2021)

Theme: Love. Also American/French culture


4. The Dig (2021)

Sutton - Hoo

Sutton Hoo is the site of two early medieval cemeteries dating from the 6th to 7th centuries near the English town of Woodbridge. Archaeologists have been excavating the area since 1938, when a previously undisturbed ship burial containing a wealth of Anglo-Saxon artefacts was discovered.

5. Little Fish (2020)

A couple fights to hold their relationship together as a memory loss virus spreads and threatens to erase the history of their love and courtship.

Theme: Love, memory, virus.

If you agree there was a coup in Ukraine, how is this democracy? Coups are not democratic, so it was a failure of democracy that started the whole thing? Foreign interference? But that is nothing new.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and freedom of conscience.

Here is such an opinion, is this NATO's view?

CBS News senior correspondent in Kyiv Charlie D’Agata said on Friday: “This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilised, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully, too – city where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen.” — Al Jaseera

Please show your hand, racists, I the world can and will take you on.

My unhappy guess is that Russia will win on the basis of the preponderance of resources it can bring to bear. I don't like it, mind you. — Bitter Crank

Win what? Their prize will be a set of problems they never encountered before. So be it.

I do not care who wins if there is peace. So I am truly objective here. I like peace.

Specifically here is my opinion.

1. The United States and to some extent NATO are extremely hostile to Russia, for historical, ideological reasons and because they are stumbling block to US power. The media rhetoric is crudely drummed up to support that end. If you have been watching western media over the last few years, you will know.

2. NATO has been doing what Russia does not want in order establish its power. Russia rightly sees this as a threat:

Ryan Knutson: Why does Putin care so much if NATO is right at the Russian border?

Yaroslav Trofimov: There are two answers to this. One of them is pre-military. I think the more important answer is that he wants to have a sphere of influence. He wants the belt of countries around Russia to be in the Russian domain and provide the security buffer, but also be a place for economic and political domination. And once a country joins NATO, that becomes impossible because he loses this military leverage of over that neighbor because now if he wants pressure Latvia or Estonia, he's actually going to fight himself at war with the United States. — Wall Street Journal article quoted above

3. Sovereign nation: Russia is not the only nation that manufactures glove puppets. According to John J. Mearsheimer, the current situation is the result in coup in Ukraine. Given the coups that have taken place around the world, the only question in my mind is why this could not happen in Ukraine? Those talking about 'covert' operations seem to strangely rule this out.

4.Putin is mad in the American sense, he is angry. I give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a last ditch attempt (at great cost to Russia and his popularity) to preserve Russian sovereignty - was there a better way at ending an 8 year war on its borders and exhaustive negotiations than invasion?

I do not know. I assume that there was no better way to do this.

5. Ukraine will be difficult to govern by Russia. Putin knows this, I am guessing he will let the current leadership stay if they come to an agreement but unlikely since they cannot be trusted (Minsk agreement)

6. I am against all invasions against all countries throughout all history, so I am against the invasions of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, unless there was no better way.

I will respond once and move on.

Is this the nuclear option?

Blame the Dutch then, they made the volcano erupt by pushing too far eastwards.

Just watch the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Baghdad. Did you support the bombing of civilians? I didn't.

Nice to know there were no women and children killed in these explosions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxEjSr6rYXU

“Saddam, Bush, and Putin – they are all dogs,” al-Idreesi said. “And if Putin could learn anything from Iraq, that is this will be the beginning of his end.” — https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/as-russia-invades-ukraine-iraqis-remember-painful-war-memories

Al Jazeera - As Russia invades Ukraine, Iraqis remember painful war memories


He surely has way with words.

Ukraine doesn't want to be part of a totalitarian regime. They're not just fighting for their lives, they are fighting for their freedom. For many of them I think that if Russia takes over Ukraine, they would try and leave the country, seek freedom somewhere else.

Everything I can find that hints at Putin's mindset seem to boil down to a total miscalculation of what Ukrainians want. I think he had become so delusional about his own importance, maybe even lied so much he started believing his own lies, that he genuinely thought Ukrainians would want him as their leader. It might be that he has now realized this wasn't the case and, therefore, he doesn't care anymore about civilian lives. So now he's only aiming to claim the land. — Christoffer

They picked one hell of an opponent to fight for freedom against. A world power with a powerful military and nuclear weapons. If this ever ends we just have to count backwards to find out where and how the lives could have been saved by an early ceasefire. I think NATO is pushing the Ukrainian president on, as a pawn in their hands - his pleas for help were not answered in time.

Ask any military strategist (not politician) what the best thing to do in the situation. I am sure it will be to agree to a ceasefire. If not, then I will just accept that.

It is a bit strange how killing civilians in full public view helps his campaign. In other news : 1 million refugees, which is a good thing, 1 million people have escaped the war zone. My feeling is that Putin would not the repercussions unless he thought it was worth it. If his was an error of judgement then put it down to isolation from Covid or battle fatigue. He never intended an error of judgement. I dislike calling people stupid or evil or mad, when they are just being human and making an error of judgement, they think they can achieve their aims. History will tell us if Putin was able to meet his goals. Again, if there was a better way I am sure he would have taken it.

See the former MI6 head speak. Of course we don't know whom he is working for, but worth listening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5lzKVn3sc

When this is all over, if it is all over, lets see if we agree lives could have been saved by surrendering early. At the moment Ukraine has the worlds support like it never had before the invasion, so a ceasefire will ensure situation hugely in their favor. I hope Zelenski makes the right choices.

https://www.mediamatters.org/russias-invasion-ukraine/fox-news-guest-let-putin-take-ukraine-without-any-sanctions-or-aid

France did surrender to Germany, they lost the battle of France but won the war. Ceasefire + peacekeepers+ sanctions + extreme pressure on Putin will be worth trying, if that is what they want.

Again a misreading of Putin. To quote Mersheimer:

Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he is mentally unbalanced. On the contrary: he is a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy. — John J. Mearsheimer

So no nuclear weapons. Putin's self- appointed demonizers will be happy to know that Putin seems to have been painted into a corner, one where there is no easy way out. As a cold blooded strategic move, it is very clever, and will go down in the history books as another victory of the West over Russia.

We will see who the author of this is when Russia comes out of this worse than before, who will take credit for the success of containing Russia. Of course they didn't do it. Putin did it. Pride will burst through and someone will try to claim that they, together with Putin, undid Russia.

Meanwhile the government propaganda continues - in the West.

In fact, if you really wanted to wreck Russia, what you would do is invite it into Ukraine and let it try and conquer the whole country and swallow it — Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin By John J. Mearsheimer

Sounds like a plan.

Time for a fact check:

There is an ongoing historical debate over comments that Western leaders, including Baker, made during post-Cold War negotiations, and whether what they said amounted to assurances that NATO would refrain from welcoming in countries closer to modern-day Russia.

But NATO as an organization made no such pledge, and the formal agreement signed at the end of those negotiations said nothing about the alliance not expanding eastward.

We rate this claim Mostly False. — Politifact

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/

Mostly false guys...

Just to be clear, Putin did something terrible in invading Ukraine and George W. Bush did something in invading Iraq? Not sure if we are all against invasions in violation of the UN Charter.

if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip — Olivier5

The overall number of confirmed deaths in the war in Donbas, which started on 6 April 2014, has been put at 13,100–13,300, by 31 January 2021.[9] According to the Ukrainian government, 14,000 were killed by 13 May 2021.[10] - Wikipedia

Escalating the war in order to bring it to an end will have support, if divided within Russia I am sure, just like any other country. As for brothers and sisters, I think the minority Russian speaking population is what the Russian population would side with, if they are typical human beings.

The matter is just unfolding, so we don't know the final result, but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire — Hanover

Putin reacted predictably, that's all to it.

Putin is the one attacking, and he sees a benefit to continuing the attack, to get maximum concessions.
Lots of options for Putin including agreeing to a ceasefire: a ceasefire will never revert back to a status quo. What Russia can bring to the table is the offer to stop attacking, what Ukraine can bring are concessions, since Ukraine's resistance was accounted for in the initial strategy.

Maybe NATO is telling Zelensky not to give concessions. At least the press is making him out to be a hero: helping him to press on.

Meet the Press:

Zelensky's rise: See how Ukrainian leader met this moment - CNN

OPINION: Ukraine vs. Russia: Here's how Zelenskyy and his country win - Fox News

Children 'in grave danger' as Russian forces close in on Ukrainian capital - ABC

Wow

. Putin knew this, that's why he played the innocence card with gathering troops around Ukraine before the invasion. And no one can blame him for any of that. We could question his motives, speculate, we could criticize him for doing it and pressure him to answer why, but since he didn't threaten Ukraine, it's all in line with what a nation can do on their side of the border. — Christoffer

I disagree here, amassing troops on a border is a threat, in my opinion, and that is how I see it. I don't think I need to push the point further. Actually I want to look at the media coverage on this.

One more thing to keep in perspective in the current context:

We took off on bombing campaigns that were horrible beyond any American’s ability to reckon with, then or now. We killed something like a million civilians in the last seven months of the war. We haven’t reckoned with that kind of violence, that kind of brute inhumanity. The kinds of crimes that we would never ever ever commit on the ground, we committed routinely from the air. We didn’t even pretend to distinguish between military and civilian targets in Japan, so that by the time the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was made, we were morally blind, paralyzed. We no longer had the capacity to understand exactly what it was that we were doing. So of course we dropped the atomic bomb. That was almost anti-climactic considering what we had done to fifty or sixty other Japanese cities. — The Atlantic

The American War Machine
James Carroll

Here's baby steps for your baby brain:

1. NATO is a defensive alliance that is made up of a union of nations that help each other if one nation gets attacked.

True. Which is why it went from 12 to 30 as the cold war faded.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide a logical argument for why this isn't the case.

2. NATO's expansion is based on a US agenda.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide evidence to how this works and how all other nations doesn't have the same power as US within NATO.

False. They have to vote. I do not know the level of influence the US has.

3. NATO's expansion has never been through any attack on anyone's border.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide example.

True

4. NATO has never directly attacked Russia or threatened Russia.

Regarded as true. If false provide evidence that they have threatened or attacked Russia.

True. Not threatened in words. Taken action that they know full well Russia does not like or will perceive as a threat, like putting your hand in the glove compartment when a police officer ask you to step out of the car. Maybe you are reaching for your mask, but you know how that will go down.

5. NATO expansion is based primarily on a nation's will to join NATO. NATO doesn't force anyone to join.

False. Based on the whims and fancies of NATO members who can veto.

Regarded as true. If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone.

6. A nation joining NATO is an active and direct threat against Russia.

Regarded as false. If true, provide a logical argument for how joining NATO is the same as threatening Russia.

Again, if Russia feels threatened and has said it does not want a nation to join NATO then what is a threat? Threatening means doing something that is interpreted as a threat, and you know it will. Again, put your hands under seat to reach for your mask.

7. NATO has equal blame for Putin's actions.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide a logical and rational argument for how that is true.

False. They have therefore unequal blame, a factor of some sort. Putin could have tried non-violence.

Each answer can be started with true or false, then provide further elaboration. But I predict that you will ignore this and just tell me how stupid I am, because that is the level at which you operate. Like a baby. — Christoffer

OK, Hope that is clear. That is my view.

There is such a thing as the psychology of international relations. If there is any doubt, see how Israel will react to massing of troops on its border.

The Atlantic article is worth reading, and though I cannot prove it correct, makes sense as an example of corporate group-think run amok. I think it is plausible, given the fact that 200 nuclear weapons are enough.

There are some people who have made an indication that a reduction in the human population is desirable (for them obviously) and are also building bunkers. Do your own research.

From the article:

Here he was, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, a man privy to all of our secrets, and fully privy to what threatened. And he took me aside one day and shared his fear and his despair. And he said, if we don’t change the way that we’re conducting ourselves as a nation, the world is doomed. And I believe that. I believe it more than ever. — The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-american-war-machine/305025/

↪Christoffer You don't get to tell Russia what counts as an act of aggression towards them or not. This is how the real world works. — StreetlightX

Exactly. And if they are paranoid, everything is an act of aggression. I am sure they at NATO know what gets them worried. They have to. And they keep doing it.

Putin is an aggressor and if he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. — StreetlightX

Why only Putin? Who else? I suggest that there a a multitude of people who are aggressors and the world would be a better place without them.

Well here is a precedent:

Eisenhower, early on in his administration, made a not-so-veiled threat to use the atomic bomb to bring the Communists to the table, and they came to the table and he and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, concluded from that the usefulness of what they came to call atomic brinksmanship, which was part of what fueled the massive build up of the atomic and nuclear arsenal in the fifties.

There is a war machine and it is making war. This looks to me the state of affairs but please correct me if I am wrong: it seems very plausible, and would jell with the history of the world...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-american-war-machine/305025/

Even before World War II was over, Carroll argues, the leaders of the Pentagon viewed Russia as the new enemy and nuclear weapons as the tool of choice to use against it. In Carroll’s telling, the United States was primarily to blame for the Cold War’s dramatic escalation, because our government consistently ignored signals that Moscow was willing to step back from the conflict. The fact is, he writes, the Cold War was convenient, first because it could be used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to justify competing and ever-higher defense expenditures, and later because it came to serve as the economic engine of the country—the “military-industrial-congressional-academic-labor-culture” complex of which Eisenhower warned. — The Atlantic

I do not blame NATO for Putin's actions, I blame the practice of using military force to settle conflict. Nuclear war is a last resort. Any war should be a last resort, but nothing we can do about this unless we convince our governments to enter into some sort of peace treaty with everyone. There is the United Nations also, and their Charter.. lets see...so they all signed it .. were forced to sign it..

AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


....
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
— UN Charter

Once again my house invasion analogy:
Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack?
— Christoffer — Christoffer

No of course not. You can be guilty of attacking and you can be also guilty of not preventing an attack, for example leaving your door wide open. Or if you provoke them in some way.

My personal view is that provoking an attack only gives NATO more ammunition to continue 'containing' Russia.

I agree mostly with the article by John J. Mearsheimer. But he is out there in the cuckoo land of international politics when he suggests:

"The United States and its allies should abandon their
plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer" — John H. Mearsheimer

The United States will do no such thing, they like being the Superpower and won't let go. That is the problem. The nation that put men on the moon could bring peace on earth if they wanted to, but is that what they want?

It is a simple question, really, and no-one has answered it: who was responsible to prevent Russia invading Ukraine? The United Nations? Was Putin unstoppable? It has to be one or the other, if you have a third alternative I would like to hear it.

We agree on many points, however I am not sure you appreciate how economic power factors into what seem to be purely security issues. You see no problem with economic competition, but when sanctions can be used at the slightest excuse, and selectively at that, sanctions become a dirty trick in the sphere of economics and international politics. Since all leaders are "bad" to some extent, then the is bound to happen. So also with NATO, membership can be used as a bargaining tool in many ways.

Any defense of Putin and his reasons or his thinking or actions have so clearly been shown to be stupid now. He is, by every definition of the word, a bad man. — Christoffer

They are all "bad" when they authorize the support of armed rebels in countries they are not at war with, launch missile attacks on countries and accidentally kill civilians with drone strikes and so on. I do not think these actions are defensible. Of course if a country is threatened then they have the right to take action, but is this the case? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Putin is not irrational, it may be ill-advised to carry out the military operations, but just as the UN recognizes the leaders of each country, and the international community does, so do I. What is more it seems best to respect the office as they say, respect will not be lost. I don't demonize anybody.

Putin is acting in the present, not in the past imperial mindset. Have you seen a map of the USSR? There were 20 odd states that gained independence from the Russia. Is Putin going to have 20+ wars going? I think the case for empire is overstated, these are strategic moves seen as securing states critical to the security of Russia, however it will be a difficult task to carry out.

To put it bluntly I am not sure if Putins actions are right or wrong because I do not know all the facts regarding the conflict. I would not go to war, but that is because I am anti-war and I think there are a hundred different options, but I would rather have a problem go unsolved than go to war. The Russian presidents actions have to be judged based on how well it serves his countries interests, both in the long term and short term, and yes it may involve war.

Hinting at the possibility of assassination is one of the oldest threats in the book, and it is really not worthy of that office.

Don't watch any of those. It will rot your brain. Just read newspapers. — frank

I watch CGTN and RT as well, critically. Newspapers - which ones do you read, and maybe we need a separate thread on that.

Words from 2014 from Adrian Basora, words that still apply.

Extremely well:

Putin’s Motives and Russian Grand Strategy

Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine strategy is driven by three goals: survival, empire and legacy. — ssu

I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do you think Putin (and those that support him) end game is? To become as powerful as they were before the breakup of the USSR or even more powerful? — dclements

In short, I really feel it is survival, maybe legacy, and there is no hope of any sort of empire. In the face of media attacks, economic sanctions and military operations - for example Syria. It may not be so bad for him now, but the idea is, like any good strategist, to nip this in the bud before he has nowhere to go.

By the way, anyone here who can't bear to watch CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera ? It's not all lies, but the bias is tiring. They have, like all good media outlets, taken sides. That's what journalism is about isn't it?

CNN: (Selected) CNN anchor slams Lavrov speech
UNHCR: This may be 'Europe's largest refugee crisis this century'

BBC is even better: (front page)

Fresh blasts in Kyiv after Russia warns capital
Dread in Kyiv as huge Russian convoy advances
Russian oligarch warns sanctions will not stop war

and...

10 TV shows to watch this March

We can switch between Kiev and our other entertainment I guess.

Kremlin sources have revealed. — Olivier5

Vladimir Putin has become “deeply worried” about his strategy after learning that Donald J. Trump called him smart, Kremlin sources have revealed. — Olivier5

They reveal what he wants them to reveal, after all, that is how the KGB worked isn't it?

There is no way any leader could have run any country so long if they were shaken by what other people say even President Trump. Is this for real?

While Ukraine wants to protect their history and sovereignty, — javi2541997

That's all well and good, judging from the demographics of the language, it won't be easy to govern by Russia.

There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture — Joseph Zbigniewski

Is this reflected in this statement?

President Joe Biden was back to declaring that Russia was “sitting on top of an economy that has nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else.” — Foreign Affairs

Most nations have had trade deals and good relations with Russia, up until Putin's aggressions started in 2014. If you view the world as a "we against them", which Putin seems to do, of course you are threatened. But that doesn't mean that you actually are threatened, it means you are delusional in thinking- and acting accordingly. — Christoffer

Ok well if I were put in as president of Russia (!) I would feel threatened and humiliated with the constant media attacks ("Russia influenced the election" never mind that this is a colossal security failure on the US ), Olympic doping scandal, banning of RT (whom Hilary Clinton testified were 'Very Good') and so on. So count me delusional on this one. I think anyone in his right mind would feel it, with years and years of sanctions and highlighting the persecution of Russian opposition leaders. This would be like Russia complaining about Bernie Sanders being sidelined or 2020 election fraud. Of course we all know exactly what happened because the Media Tells us So.

We can also turn this around. If as many in here are arguing, NATO is interesting in just pushing east and threatening Russia, why didn't they just welcome Ukraine with open arms? It doesn't really fit with the "aggressive NATO" narrative many write about in here. — Christoffer

In reality the acceptance into NATO has to be unanimous , there are some dissenters out there.

This is still not to show how much greater they are, but instead an interest of a superpower to be an economic superpower. This is done by the US, Russia and China while smaller nations with power also tries to gain power through it. Everyone does it — Christoffer

I agree, everyone does it.

. An unstable region could automatically lead to conflict with NATO if that nation joins — Christoffer

So preventing them from joining NATO and allowing this catastrophe was the better choice? Is it really?
How could anyone argue against preventing an invasion without anyone getting killed? By the way this would have stopped my presumed hero, Putin.

The difference is that Russia has an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders. — Christoffer

The same way the British invaded 80% (invaded or otherwise acquired) of the world? Just want to clarify that the King or Kings of England whoever they were was, " an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders". That would be consistent. The same way the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and others created empires? Maybe Putin is living in the past.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions.

Putin is authoritarian, yes. He is also entitled to an opinion. If you say he should have found a better way to achieve his goals without invading a country and causing mayhem then that is valid. Maybe he is not smart enough to do that. Or maybe that was impossible. So what does he do? Give up on his goals?

Might as well ask the Ukranians to stop fighting after 14 years and save lives. The fighting is going to stop sometime, so totaling up a high body count to make a point is one option, but I do not support it.

I want to have a simple answer from you:

How does NATO expand? In practice, how does it expand? Are they forcing themselves into nations or are nations joining them?

And why are they joining NATO or want to join NATO? — Christoffer

While Streetlightx is responding, may I add something here, since I have addressed this before?

How does NATO expand? Consider yourself facing a football team of 12 players. Upon invitation 18 more join the opposing team. Do you feel threatened? And this is after the game (cold war ) has ended.

If nations are joining them freely, then why did not Ukraine join them and put a stop to Putin's ambitions?
That was the purpose of NATO after all, to check Russian ambitions.

Do you deny that America and Russia are adversaries with one attempting to get the better of the other?

Why do they want to join NATO after the cold war ended? Same reason people join gangs, collective power for coercion on the international scene I would think.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic. — Apollodorus

Yes yes, but isn't what is in their free and independent minds important? Suppose what they had in their heads was the brotherhood of man. That would be nice. It follows that anything else would not be nice.

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth — Olivier5

They think they are. The words "World's Policeman" mean something, especially the brutality.

What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it — jamalrob

I think we established all nations run after these things.