What's this out of the blue?

It's not black or white. We can say things clearly: Ukraine has a right to self-defense, Russia has a right to safe borders, what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option.

The reason they have an army there is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. If they just sit back and bend over, they'll get it, as they have been since the USSR collapsed, NATO moved, not inches to the East, but hundreds of miles, when they were promised "not an inch".

What's crucial here is that Ukraine does not border the US - in fact, it's very far away.

If Russia was seriously considering joining a military alliance with say, Mexico, then they would be the aggressors and the US would have the right to place troops on its borders.

Nothing to do with being "Anti America", that's an empty phrase, with virtually no meaning.

It's not black or white. We can say things clearly: Ukraine has a right to self-defense, Russia has a right to safe borders, what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option. — Manuel

What is NATO doing that's extremely dangerous? I honestly don't know.

The US military has had the ability to level Moscow for the last 50 years. They could do it any time day or night. They don't need access to Ukraine for that. Why is Putin suddenly feeling threatened?

Building up forces around and in Ukraine. Putin may be many things, but he isn't stupid, much less suicidal. If he invades Ukraine, it's game over. Nevertheless, if he doesn't put troops in the border, Ukraine may feel it could join NATO without consequence, seeing Russia doesn't seem to mind.

He is feeling threatened because Ukraine was gesturing towards joining NATO. As would the US feel threatened if Mexico gave signals it wanted to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Putin may be many things, but he isn't stupid, much less suicidal. If he invades Ukraine, it's game over. — Manuel

What do you mean? What do you think will happen?

Nevertheless, if he doesn't put troops in the border, Ukraine may feel it could join NATO without consequence, seeing Russia doesn't seem to mind. — Manuel

So you think he's just going to leave 130,000 troops on the border from now on? To keep Ukraine from joining NATO?

I'm interested in why you and I see such a different world, so thanks for responding.

I don't know what will happen, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that diplomacy will work.

I believe that if an agreement is made that Ukraine will not join NATO, the troops will leave. Otherwise, it's suicide.

I don't know, people differ a lot in politics. I tend to avoid thinking in terms of "good guys" or "our side" vs. "bad guys" or "them". It's just a different set of (very often) elite interests.

That's how I view it anyway.

Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia. — Apollodorus

Exactly. You said it even yourself. It isn't may be, it is no threat to Russia.

And NATO?

What you utterly (and intentionally) fail to notice is that the actions of annexing parts of other countries, starting and continuing a proxy war in Ukraine ARE THE REASONS why Russia's western neighbors are contemplating joining NATO. The Baltic states and Eastern Europe countries surely see now that joining NATO (when there was the chance) was the right thing. Without those annexations, that you are silent about, Sweden wouldn't have gone back to conscription and would have just focused on international missions. There wouldn't be a discussion here in my country about possible NATO membership. NATO genuinely would have been focused on outside theater peacekeeping / peace-enforcing mission. Likely there wouldn't have been any thought to given for article 5 in NATO circles and there had been no exercises in the Baltic states. In fact, prior to the occupation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine. And European countries would be far more interested in trade relations with Russia and the hawks in Washington would be a minority now. NATO membership of Ukraine would be like EU membership of Turkey. Nope, not going to happen. The security environment has changed.

Annexing parts of other countries just does that.

This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none.

And you still have not answered if you condemn or not the annexations that Russia has done.

If Russia was seriously considering joining a military alliance with say, Mexico, then they would be the aggressors and the US would have the right to place troops on its borders. — Manuel

Don't forget Cuba or Venezuela. Or Nicaragua. You see, bullying and starting a "hybrid attack" (like we saw with the Bay of Pigs etc) simply puts these countries into a corner. And then they can have those Russian bombers visit them.

(Russian Military Aircraft in Venezuela Satellite photos provided by DigitalGlobe show two Russian nuclear-capable Tu-160 Blackjack bombers along with a heavy-lift AN-124 cargo plane and an Il-62 passenger plane outside of Venezuela's capital on Dec. 10, 2018.)

I don't know, people differ a lot in politics. I tend to avoid thinking in terms of "good guys" or "our side" vs. "bad guys" or "them". It's just a different set of (very often) elite interests. — Manuel

I agree. The mechanics of world events is fascinating to me. I just thought you were anti-American because you said you agreed with one of the more staunchly anti-American characters on the forum.

I think I misunderstood that.

Makes sense, they need international partners after all.



As I've told him, I don't agree with the way he expresses himself and some of his claims, I wouldn't agree with. I don't think this is helpful analytically or for communication purposes.

However, I'm fully aware that I could be called a coward or lacking a spine or convictions. It's a matter of temperament.

However, he's obviously very knowledgeable, has always been nice to me and reads some very interesting books.

This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none. — ssu

I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing. Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy. I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF.

Nothing to do with being "Anti America", that's an empty phrase, with virtually no meaning. — Manuel

I totally agree. Frankly, I find it quite surprising that on a philosophy forum it is difficult to exchange views without people losing their temper (and, apparently, sometimes their marbles) just because someone else takes a different stance. One would have thought that philosophers would take a more philosophical approach to life .... :grin:

IMO, the problem with the pro-NATO and pro-EU views expressed here seems to be that they are too provincial and semi-educated, in addition to being biased and misinformed. It is clear from @ssu's statements that he experienced what he calls “Russian propaganda” in his teens after which he decided to start his own anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

His suggested “solution” to the Ukraine crisis isn’t really a solution, for the simple reason that it leaves too many things unresolved. A real solution requires a global, comprehensive vision and a degree of objectivity and impartiality than he is not prepared to bring to the table.

As already stated, my position as a general principle is that in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Tibet is under Chinese occupation, Northern Cyprus and parts of Syria and Iraq are under Turkish occupation, Kurdish territories (Kurdistan) are under Turkish, Iraqi, and Iranian occupation, etc., etc.

The question that arises from this is, if the international community does absolutely nothing about Tibet, Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, and many other issues, on what logical basis does it choose to attack Russia over Ukraine?

The answer is that it is not the international community that wants to go to war with Russia, but America and its EU and NATO puppets, Britain in particular.

America’s interference in European affairs is not a democratic initiative. The EU and NATO are not democratic institutions. Their political and military expansionism is not an expression of democracy but of militarism and imperialism. The EU and NATO are instruments of American imperialism.

America is now claiming that a Russian invasion of Ukraine jeopardizes Indo-Pacific stability and puts the post-World War Two global order at risk!

U.S. Warns Allies That Ukraine Crisis Puts Post-World War II Order at Risk – Wall Street Journal

But whose order is this post-WW2 World Order? America’s, of course! And it is a militaristic, imperialist, and undemocratic order. To restore peace and democracy in the world, we need to oppose, not support this order.

This is why, though I am, in principle, against any country being invaded and occupied by another, I think Russia should be allowed to do this in Ukraine unless Ukraine is prepared to guarantee that it will not join Russia’s enemies EU and NATO.

Taking into consideration that post WW2, it has been America and its instruments EU and NATO that have been expanding and NOT Russia, I believe that siding with Russia on this matter would be more conducive to world peace, democracy, and equity than siding with America.

As a matter of principle, it is unacceptable in a free and democratic world for Europe’s foreign policy to be dictated by America and Britain.

We know that Germany and France have a much more nuanced and moderate approach to Russia, which is in their own interests, than Britain whose main interests lie elsewhere. German Chancellor Scholz was initially more accommodating of Russian concerns and so were members of the German military. However, Germany’s position changed when Foreign Minister Baerbock intervened on the US side and Scholz was summoned to the White House by Biden.

Who exactly is Annalena Baerbock? And why does she, and not the Chancellor, dictate her country’s foreign policy?!

Well, in her youth, Baerbock used to take part in anti-NATO and anti-war demos organized by the Green Party. Unfortunately, she later completed an exchange year at Lake Highland Preparatory School in Orlando, Florida. She completed internships at Anglo-American outfits like Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Deutsche Presseagentur and the Council of Europe (founded by Churchill). She completed a master course in public international law at the London School of Economics (LSE). She worked on a thesis at the US-founded Free University of Berlin. And she was a trainee at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL).

And this person who openly advocates eastward expansion by NATO and close collaboration with America, has been put in charge of German foreign policy!

This, of course, has a long tradition going back to Allied-occupied Germany and its first ministers for foreign affairs, US-collaborator Conrad Adenauer and Heinrich von Brentano (member of Churchill’s US-funded European Movement and Council of Europe), followed by the Anglicized, pro-UK and pro-US Gerhard Schröder (who had been indoctrinated at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and then re-educated in Allied POW camps), Willy Brandt (co-founder of the British-controlled International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organizations and operative of the US Counterintelligence Corps), and many others down to Baerbock.

Obviously, a Europe that is dominated by America, Britain, and Anglo-American puppet governments like Germany, cannot be described as “sovereign”. This is why it is time for Europe's US-imposed post-WW2 order to be dismantled and rebuilt, not in the interests of America or Russia, but in the interests of the European people. I think this is perfectly logical and morally just, don't you?

Anyway, Finland’s views on this topic are completely irrelevant. So, @ssu is wasting his time IMO.

However, I'm fully aware that I could be called a coward or lacking a spine or convictions. It's a matter of temperament. — Manuel

I think it's more a matter of how much a person wants to reduce to the world to a cartoon. Germany instigated war in the 1940s so Germans are evil. Russia killed 40 million of its own people in the early 20th century so Russians are evil.

On the other hand, pointing out real victims of real crimes: that I can get behind.

It's an interesting tension. The EU could have it's own military alliance, not dependent on NATO. Yet they don't do it, I think they don't want to pay the bills when they have very strong military support.

I also think that in principle all these things should be left to a free and open democratic community. But we still have the problem of making the EU democratic, which is very far away. I don't know how the EU could be made to change internally, because it's a mess. They need more transparency, more communication with the population and much more.

And an EU FP could still be aggressive, like all major states are. Nevertheless, they should have the option, of course. It's just amazing to see that after two World Wars, they can't organize together.

Russia is acting according to its own interests, of course, and what they're doing makes sense from a "real politick" perspective. And they don't merely back down because they're threatened.

And sure, Russia also has serious internal problems with corruption, inequality and undemocratic aspects. I hope they can improve, it's a tough situation.



Yeah. The Nazi's did what they did for a reason, as did the Soviets. Had legitimate German concerns been listened to years before WWII, the whole thing could have stopped the war. It's easier to just label them as evil (which they were, no doubt) and not think about it anymore.

Same with the Soviets, in the end, elite interests within the Party overthrew democratic institutions in favor of strong, authoritarian state bureaucracy.

There are no "good guys" in world affairs, or it's very rare. There are good people and groups and acts, and many horrific ones too.

There are no "good guys" in world affairs, or it's very rare. There are good people and groups and acts, and many horrific ones too. — Manuel

I think recognizing that is the best way to see the world clearly.

This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message. — ssu

Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII.

I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF. — Benkei

what

I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing. — Benkei

Almost nothing?

Let's start from that prior to the annexation of Crimea and the push, Putin was actually very popular in Ukraine. He really isn't now. Remember the situation before 2014.

I should remind that they changed the G7 to G8 to get Russia into that Club, NATO was looking at "new security threats" and Article 5 style defense was of an already past time. NATO had NEVER exercised in the Baltics. There actually were no plans to defend the Baltics. Or with Sweden and Finland in their territory. NATO countries were disarming. It was the time of new security threats: terrorism, climate change and so on.

(Earlier Vlad was part of the gang)


And then there are the sanctions, which do have had an effect.

Western sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions reduced Russian real gross domestic product (GDP) initially by 1–1.5% and that prolonged sanctions would lead to an even larger cumulative output loss. In 2019, the IMF estimated that sanctions reduced Russia’s growth rate by 0.2 percentage points every year in 2014-2018.

While a number of academic studies give different estimates of the extent of the economic loss, most of them support the view that sanctions have clearly reduced Russia’s economic development. The prohibition of long-term financing for certain large state-owned companies, including the major banks Sberbank and VTB, has been particularly significant. Another notable measure has been the export ban on certain sensitive technologies that can be used for oil production, because it hinders the exploration of important future resources in deep water, Arctic, and shale deposits.

So what did Putin really get in return? A naval base? Well, there are the straights of Bosporus, hence the Black Sea hasn't been as important as the bases in Kola peninsula and Vladivostok. The economy of Crimea isn't good and Russia has to spend roughly 1 billion into Luhansk and Donetsk.

Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy. — Benkei

I disagree. Do note that that strategy really did work. The US withdrew all it's bases from Central Asia. Yet especially now it would want to have a base to check the Taliban, but Russia said no. Now I do think that Russia had to be active in this, so it surely wasn't passive on this. But Russia simply wasn't openly bellicose and hostile at the former Central Asian states. How can you say that a strategy that actually did work wouldn't have worked here? Russia could have done similar things as there as really there wasn't much enthusiasm for Ukraine in the West.

All Russia had to do is to have one NATO country being against the membership of Ukraine. To simply to postpone it to such a distant future that IT NEVER HAPPENS. Just like the EU has done with the Turkish membership talks. I think they started in the 1980's, well before my country joined the EU. That is how things are done. The EU simply won't say NO to Turkey. But it surely won't take in into the union. Ukraine on the waiting list for perpetuity is actually something that easily could have happened.

And more to it, with Crimea and Donbass in Ukraine, even NATO membership there would have been questionable. And do notice just how much the US has been talking about on shifting the focus to the Pacific and China and not in Europe. And lastly, just look at the GOP hawks in Washington. John McCaine is dead. The old GOP hawks are few and far between as Trumpism reign supreme in the party.

The idea that Ukraine would have joined NATO as George W Bush had stated is highly speculative also. After all, the US focus is (and even more would be) in China.

Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII. — SophistiCat

Talk of a true strategic surprise. That the VDV airborne troops had only to take off their Russian flags from their uniforms and instantly, they were "little Green men". That is still a total mystery for me: how could the reporters be so clueless? And the propaganda effort worked as a charm. But that kind of surprise works only once: when it comes out of the blue as it did back then.

Here indeed there isn't much strategic surprise. Ukraine hasn't mobilized it's reserves, but still. In 2014 it didn't have the ability to defend itself. It got only a paratroop brigade to move to the east and for the first Ukrainian main battle tanks to be deployed into the Donbas it took six months or so. Not so now.

Hence there is the possibility that this will go for far longer than anticipated and Russia will just try to milk everything out of the present. Because going into war with Ukraine is simply a bad idea. Or if Putin really wants to get those old borders, then it's a great idea.

The EU could have it's own military alliance, not dependent on NATO. Yet they don't do it, I think they don't want to pay the bills when they have very strong military support. — Manuel

I’m sure that this is part of it. However, it isn’t unconnected with your observation that they can’t organize together.

And they can’t organize together because of external interference. Germany is not allowed by other European states to have the same military capability as Britain and France, or its own foreign policy, and Europe is not allowed by America to have a proper military, or its own foreign policy. This is just one of the many issues that are right at the root of the festering European problem.

Turkey is a NATO member with clear militaristic and expansionist objectives. In addition to systematically suppressing political opposition, as well as religious and ethnic minorities, Turkey has invaded and occupied Cyprus, it has declared the Mediterranean Sea “Turkey’s blue homeland”, it has drafted plans to invade Greek islands, it has similar plans for other parts of Europe, and it has millions of Turkish citizens in Germany, France, and other European countries, many of whom are organized in violent neo-fascist outfits like the Grey Wolves which are affiliated to the Turkish secret services and the Nationalist Movement Party which in turn is connected with the Turkish government and military, as well as with organized crime groups. Turkey also has long-standing close links to international Islamic terror organizations like Hamas.

Turkey allowing Hamas to plot attacks on Israelis from its soil – Times of Israel

Erdogan’s purge: 50,000 ousted, arrested, or suspended – The Globe and Mail

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

And let’s not forget the havoc other NATO members like America and Britain have created in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.

And yet, inexplicably, there are some who claim that NATO is somehow morally (and, presumably, racially) “superior” to Russia and has a God-given right to rule the world! :smile:

Anyway, Kiev is only about 140 miles from Belarus. If the Russians launch a lightning operation on Kiev from the north, it can be over in a matter of hours with very few casualties. It is simply wrong to believe that Russia has any intention to massacre the Ukrainian population. The reality is that Ukraine and Russia are two friendly nations with close cultural, linguistic, and historical links to one another. The true cause of the conflict is foreign, i.e., US and UK interference ....

Yes, Germany has it tough in terms of military. France used to have an independent path in world affairs - more or less - and did not join NATO until rather recently. If they so wished, they could theoretically form a kind of military union with the UK, though again, one would have to see what the US says about this.

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway.

What you say about Russia doing a quick attack - yeah maybe, but it would be very, very risky. I highly doubt this would happen, but we don't know. NATO should soften a bit, in return for some Russian troops leaving, ending with a formal signed statement that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO.

Something like that.

The US military has had the ability to level Moscow for the last 50 years. They could do it any time day or night. They don't need access to Ukraine for that. Why is Putin suddenly feeling threatened? — frank

Actually, for over 77 years now. And Russia has had the ability to cause similar harm to New York and Washington DC since 1949. Yes, there was a missile gap in favor of the US for a long time, but the Soviet Union surpassed the number of nuclear weapons (and ICBMs) finally in the late 1970's I guess.

That Biden won't even think to deploy US troops to assist in a hypothetical evacuation of US citizens from Ukraine if a war would start shows that the Russian nuclear deterrence works.

(Now the US has similar amount of nuclear weapons it had in the 1950's and Russia the amount it had in the 1960's)

Appeasement is also dangerous, as I think we'll see as this unfolds.

And Russia has had the ability to cause similar harm to New York and Washington DC since 1949. — ssu

Russia's nuclear capability went into decline after the cold war. Whatever capability they have now is recently aquired.

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. — Manuel

Do notice the importance of NATO articles 1 and 2, not only 5. Having the European militaries working together is important force peace. That was a reasonable thing to have as EU isn't a military pact. Don't forget that the US did have plans for a war with UK after WW1 (as it had with Japan), even if they just had been allies in the Great War.

Actually, it was the basic reason why they didn't dissolve the organization when Russia wasn't so bellicose as now and everybody didn't thing it would stand up anymore.

Russia's nuclear capability went into decline after the cold war. Whatever capability they have now is recently aquired. — frank

Actually no. The ONLY thing they DID preserve was their nuclear deterrence. That was the last thing they let to crumble apart and they have, unlike the US, have had a persistent program to renew their nuclear deterrence. Having over 40 000 nuclear weapons was indeed a burden, but thankfully there were the huge reductions with the US and a lot of those Russian nukes ended up as fuel in US nuclear power plants giving energy to the cities they were intended to demolish. (A really happy true story, which are rare in this World)



Russia hasn't forgotten nukes...as basically the US has (and focused on hunting Islamic terrorists and fighting wars abroad) and now, as usual, has to spend a lot more perhaps to upgrade it's existing systems that work on 80's technology. I remember someone saying that Russia develops these new nuclear weapons, like the Avantgard, in order for having them as bargaining chips.

what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option. — Manuel

This is propaganda koolaid. Nato is an alliance of defense. If Russia keeps being Russia, keeping the current borders, then Nato isn't doing anything, regardless of how many nations become members. Russia tries to blatantly change the narrative into Nato being an offensive alliance, which it isn't. Russia would never be attacked by Nato, but Russia and Putin benefit from spinning that narrative as Putin wants to expand into previous Soviet borders. So by using "the threat from Nato" as an excuse, he can (in his mind) explain to the world why he's invading Ukraine. But it's just foolish to think people outside of Russia fall for this because it's very clear what Nato stands for and Russia has nothing to worry about. Nato builds defensive lines, if Russia were to ever send missiles into Europe, that's when Nato comes into play. It's not Russia that "needs to defend the borders from Nato forcers", it's the rest of Europe that needs to defend the borders towards Russia. It's Russia that acts as the aggressor, not Nato, not Europe and not Ukraine.

Invading and occupying another country as a way to defend your own borders is not considered a defensive act in peacetimes. Russia is the aggressor, the invader, the attacker. If they invade Ukraine, THEY are breaking peace.

There is no way Russia could argue themselves into being the good guy here, whatever narrative they try to spin as propaganda.

I just think all of this is stupid. Russia has the potential to be a tremendous partner in alliance with the rest of the world. But Putin and his compadres from the old KGB are so delusional in their quest for Soviet empire ideals that they hold their own nation hostage. Killing opposing political figures and keeping Russia in a slowed economy due to their actions internationally. It's plain stupid.

I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway. — Manuel

Totally correct. Putin has said that the West wants to destroy Russia, and I believe he is right.

What is important to understand is that NATO’s (and the EU’s) policy vis-à-vis Russia is the heritage of British imperialism which had two basic objectives: (1) to contain Russia by preventing it from expanding into India, the Pacific, Europe, or the Mid East and (2) to get access to Russia’s resources.

I think it is undeniable that the West has a keen interest in Russia’s resources, especially oil and gas, as Europe is buying large quantities from Russia. We also know that Western oil giants like ExxonMobil, Total, and Royal Dutch Shell were operating in Russia, often in joint ventures with Russian companies, until 2014 when the West started imposing economic sanctions on Russia.

Some of them are still there. For example, BP (British Petroleum) owns nearly 20% of Russia’s Rosneft and nearly 50% of joint ventures with Rosneft: 49% of Yermak Neftegaz, 49% of the Kharampur Project. Similarly, Shell is a partner of Russia’s Gazprom, etc. And the same is true of aluminium and other resources.

It follows that to say that the West has no interest in Russia’s resources is totally false. If the Putin government were to fall due to military conflict with NATO (which has superior capabilities) or due to economic and financial sanctions, the first to get their hands on Russian resources would be Western corporations, primarily American and British ones, which will then be able to control energy prices (and energy-dependent economies) even more than before.

As I have already demonstrated (see page 6), NATO was founded by representatives of oil interests including Shell which also initiated the Atlantic Movement of which NATO was a product and instrument. And it is Shell (as well as US companies) that has announced its intention to supply gas to Europe in case of disruptions caused by the Ukraine crisis.

Obviously, it isn't just oil corporations. The defense industry also stands to make trillions of dollars from a conflict, as it did in WW1 and WW2, and even from the threat of a conflict, as it did throughout the Cold War era, etc. But I think it is pretty clear whose interests NATO really represents and what its overarching agenda is. This is why a more comprehensive analysis is required in order to form a more accurate picture of the situation, instead of reiterating the pro-EU and pro-NATO narrative (or fairy tale).

As for Ukraine, Russia clearly has the capability and technology to deal with the situation without any major problem. The 130,000 troops are there only in case something goes wrong.

In any case, Ukraine is merely a symptom of the wider geopolitical problems whose causes are definitely not Russia's creation. If we think about it, even if the EU and NATO knew that they are the main cause, would they openly admit it? I don't think so. Let's not forget that the West, US and UK in particular, has a long history of black propaganda and lies, like Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction":

In a phone conversation on February 20th, 2003 – a month before the invasion – Dr. Blix [who was in charge of UN inspections] expressed his doubts to Tony Blair. ‘I said explicitly to him that it would be paradoxical if we were to invade Iraq with 250,000 people and find very little. He said no, no, no they are all convinced it will be there.’ Precisely a month later American and British troops entered Iraq. They found nothing

What Did Happen To Saddam’s WMD? - History Today

It follows that it is incorrect to say that the West does not use propaganda and lies to further its self-interest and justify its actions ....

Actually no. The ONLY thing they DID preserve was their nuclear deterrence. — ssu

Not after the collapse of the USSR.

NATO's not going anywhere regardless of what should happen. What I fear is that the hawks inside this situation think that using diplomacy to settle this is the equivalent of appeasement.



It would be beyond crazy if Western Europe got itself in another war with itself. I don't think this would happen anymore. Germany is now extremely reluctant to use military force, and would likely be somewhat of a restraint to others.

But again, NATO is not going anywhere.



Ok.



The "West" merely want a president who is favorable to them economically as you say, and which doesn't protest with actions, against powerful actors. I think saying that they want to destroy Russia is a bit much, they want a client state. One may argue that this destroys a countries autonomy, and sure, this makes sense.

While I understand the troop deployment, it's a tense situation. One mistake by a soldier or general and this would get very ugly. I wouldn't want to be Ukrainian right now.

And yes, I agree. I'd only add that it not only applies to NATO, EU and the US, ANY major power wouldn't admit to making mistakes or admitting faults in international affairs. It's almost never done. Exceptions being WWII, to some extent.

It's mind boggling that after Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS, people who normally lambast the media for being BS artists, now rely on these same sources as being a good source of info for yet another potential war. Craziness.

Not after the collapse of the USSR. — frank

What do you mean?

The R-36 missile was deployed in 1988 and has continued up until now in service with Russia (to be replaced with the RS-26 Sarmat). A lot of Cold War systems continued in Russian service. Yes, some systems fell into the hands of Ukraine and Kazakhstan, but they were given back to Russia and both countries didn't have the incentive to try to upkeep such a costly weapons system (with horrific consequences to Ukraine, as we have seen now).

The reductions happened because of START I and START II agreements.

It would be beyond crazy if Western Europe got itself in another war with itself. I don't think this would happen anymore. — Manuel

It's not at all so crazy in a couple of instances...

Remember what we heatedly discussed with @Apollodorus about Cyprus. If Greece and Turkey wouldn't be NATO members, I think they we surely would have had a war or two between them. (After all, the Greek Cypriots wanted to join Greece)

Then there are the border issues that Hungary and Romania have had over Transylvania:

Soon after the demise of the Communist regimes in Hungary and Romania, in March 1990, violent ethnic clashes in Transylvania strained the relationship between both countries to the brink of war. As a result, the first Open Skies Treaty in the world to mutually assess the strength and disposition of opposing military forces was worked out and became effective in 1992. This is considered a direct precursor of the 2002 multilateral Treaty on Open Skies that once included Russia and the United States.

And then both countries joined the EU and NATO. Now the relations have improved.

What do you mean?

The R-36 missile was deployed in 1988 and has continued up until now in service with Russia (to be replaced with the RS-26 Sarmat). — ssu

Yea. They still had staff and "in service" equipment, but they weren't prepared to actually use it. Not sure why this is important to pursue, though.

NATO's not going anywhere regardless of what should happen. What I fear is that the hawks inside this situation think that using diplomacy to settle this is the equivalent of appeasement. — Manuel

What you were describing is appeasement.