It is exactly the quality that treating Putin like a cartoon villain deserves. A cartoon response.

Both sides are defending a narrow set of interests. NATO is defending its “right” to expansion up to Russia’s borders and Russia is defending its “right” to a sphere of influence or buffer zone around its borders. Both sides can apply ostensibly reasonable arguments to support their positions. NATO can point to Ukrainian autonomy and its right to set its own security and defence policy and Russia can point to NATO’s broken promises re expansion to the east and a need to set a red line on further encroachment. Russia portrays NATO's maneuvers as an attempt to weaken it in relative terms and NATO portrays Russia's maneuvers as imperialistic. But regardless of who fires the first shot (and war has been going on by proxy in the Ukraine’s eastern regions for years), both sides taking an aggressive posture and neither backing down is the ethical failure here. That Russia’s not backing down manifests more obviously in open conflict and the eventual subjugation of Ukraine, whereas NATO's not backing down would manifest in the full transformation of Ukraine into a western client state is not the primary issue, but the short-sighted lack of mutual engagement. Russian subjugation of Ukraine and NATO integration are the respective worst case scenarios for each belligerent here (and for the rest of us imo), and the inability to allow for alternatives is blameworthy.

Still trying to get the current picture.
This article with maps and satellite images helped a little.
For example, the expansion of NATO from 1949 - 2020; the military build-up Nov '21 - Jan '22; and the all-important gas pipeline.

The Ukraine-Russia crisis explained: a complete visual guide
Tensions have escalated sharply after Vladimir Putin ordered troops into east Ukraine. What might happen next?

A map released by Ukrainian military intelligence in November showed a worst-case scenario: Russian forces crossing the Ukrainian border from the east and attacking from annexed Crimea, as well as launching an amphibious assault on Odessa with support from Russian soldiers in Transnistria and troops sent in from Belarus...

What is the role of Nord Stream 2?
On 22 February, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, stopped the certification process for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in response to Russia’s recognition of the two self-proclaimed republics...

Europe’s most divisive energy project, Nord Stream 2 bypasses the traditional gas transit nation of Ukraine by running along the bed of the Baltic Sea. It has faced resistance within the European Union, and from the United States as well as Ukraine, on the grounds that it increases Europe’s energy dependence on Russia, denies Ukraine transit fees and makes it more vulnerable to Russian invasion.
— Guardian: the Ukraine-Russian crisis explained

It’s an abject failure if the American system that Trump isn’t in jail already for sedition. — Wayfarer

If it counts as sedition over there now to state that Putin is smart (compared to your leaders, not a very high bar) then the American system certainly has failed.

treating Putin like a cartoon villain — StreetlightX

You stole that quip off @jamalrob

No no it's the FSB script I'm following.

you stole @jamalrob's whole script?

Russia-Ukraine live updates: Kyiv to declare state of emergency

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/23/not-peacekeepers-at-all-un-chief-condemns-russia-move-live

Well, things are shaking up. It's hard to say how it will play out.

It was interesting to hear Matt Taibbi speaking on this topic, he pointed out that the sanctions so far given to Russia have been extremely mild, like, Roman Abrhamovic, the owner of Chelsea, is completely fine.

Germany has put a stop to the pipeline as mentioned here.

But surely attacking Kiev would be wild.

Both sides are defending a narrow set of interests. NATO is defending its “right” to expansion up to Russia’s borders and Russia is defending its “right” to a sphere of influence or buffer zone around its borders. Both sides can apply ostensibly reasonable arguments to support their positions — Baden

I understand that. But don't you agree that at this time, NATO has no desire to destabilize or threaten Russia in any way? Particularly post pandemic, Europe and the USA are reaching for something like normality, not domination of Central Europe, and certainly not aggression toward Russia.

So we have to back up in time to pick up the threads of NATO opposition to Russian expansion. And maybe I should stop here (before going into the history of Russian oppression and persecution of Ukrainians).

Do you agree that NATO has primarily sought to limit Russian expansion? Or do you really think NATO wants to somehow undermine the health of the Russian state?

Russia portrays NATO's maneuvers as an attempt to weaken it in relative terms and NATO portrays Russia's maneuvers as an imperialistic. But regardless of who fires the first shot (and war has been going on by proxy in the Ukraine’s eastern regions already), both sides taking an aggressive posture and neither backing down is the ethical failure here — Baden

Thanks for shining some light on the subject.
I wasn't aware of NATO's broken promises and the way in which Russia might feel threatened.

Can you expand more on this, or where I might find more information, thanks.

***

That Russia’s not backing down manifests more obviously in open conflict and the eventual subjugation of Ukraine, whereas NATO's not backing down would manifest in the full transformation of the Ukraine into a western client state is not the primary issue imo but the short-sighted lack of mutual engagemen — Baden

Immediate conflict and invasion have direct and dire consequences to the wellbeing of Ukrainians than any potential transformation has. Right now, civilians will have to flee, fight or be killed.
I'm not seeing how it even compares...

Putin's aggressive actions and belligerent behaviour are about as far from reasonable as you can get. NATO's role I thought more defensive...and protective?

This is what it means to be a 'friend' of the West:

IMF handouts continue. The latest is an agreement to extend loans into 2022 worth $700m of a total $5bn IMF ‘stand-by arrangement’. For this money, Ukraine “must keep its debt ‘sustainable’, safeguard the central bank’s independence, bring inflation back into its target range and tackling corruption.” So austerity measures must be applied to public spending; the central bank must act in the interests of foreign debtors and not allow the currency to devalue too much and keep interest rates up without the interference of the government; and the rampant corruption in government with the Ukrainian oligarchs must be controlled. (see IMF Stand-by arrangement November 2021 report. )

Austerity measures have been applied by various governments over the last ten years. The current IMF package requires a tax increase equivalent to 0.5% of annual GDP, increased pension contributions and rises in energy tariffs. All these measures will lead to a further fall in welfare spending, from 20% of GDP at the time of the 2014 crisis to just 13% this year.

Above all, the IMF is insisting, with the support of the latest post-Maidan government, to carry out substantial privatisation of the banks and state enterprises in the interests of ‘efficiency’ and to control ‘corruption’. ... The government is resisting allowing foreigners to buy land. But in 2024, Ukrainian legal entities will qualify for transactions involving up to 10,000 hectares and will apply to an agricultural area of 42.7 million hectares (103 million acres). That is equivalent to the entire surface area of the state of California, or all of Italy! The World Bank is positively drooling at this opening up of Ukraine’s key industry to capitalist enterprise: “This is without exaggeration a historic event, made possible by the leadership of the President of Ukraine, the will of the parliament and the hard work of the government.” So Ukraine plans to open up its economy even more to capital, particularly foreign capital, in the hope that this will deliver faster growth and prosperity.

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/02/14/ukraine-trapped-in-a-war-zone/

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones. — StreetlightX

Absolutely. I get that. So Ukraine just gets to be a pawn.

And maybe invasion is the only way to draw a line in the sand.

But the irony is that if Russia hurts its own economy by drawing this line, it doesn't really win in the end.

Russia have been extremely mild, like, Roman Abrhamovic, the owner of Chelsea, is completely fine. — Manuel

He isn't in Putin's inner circle. He was in Yeltsin's. And I guess recommending Yeltsin that Vladimir Putin would be his successor doesn't make you damned by the West.

Ah, did not know that.

I suppose it doesn't hurt that he owns Chelsea.

Nevertheless, if they want to give severe sanctions, I'd imagine most oligarchs would be involved. Not that I think this should be done - I don't know what should be done now.

I don't have a good picture of how this could play out.

Hopefully it's mostly a political scare, than anything beyond that.

Friends with Benefits = No Tory sanctions which bite.

... it is a mutual process which has been going on, pretty much unseen, for a long time.
For example: the ennoblement of Mr Lebedev, son of a former KGB agent... — Amity

More on mutual friends and gifts. So much for Tory government's 'sanctions'...
Putin is laughing, and the Tories lie and win again.

Boris Johnson could not have been more clear. “I just think it’s very important that the house understands – we do not raise money from Russian oligarchs.” Some opposition MPs laughed, and it very much is the case that the prime minister was accurate only in a strict legalistic sense.

It would be impossible for someone only with Russian nationality, however rich, to donate legally to a UK political party. What has undoubtedly happened is that a series of people with dual UK-Russian nationality, or with significant business links with Russia, have donated heavily to the Conservatives in recent years.

A Labour party calculation based on Electoral Commission information estimated that donors who have made money from Russia or Russians have given £1.93m to either the Tory party or constituency associations since Johnson became prime minister.

Others put the sum higher. Ian Blackford, the SNP’s Westminster leader, to whom Johnson was replying in the Commons on Wednesday, said the Tories had raised £2.3m “from Russian oligarchs”

[ ... ]

The biggest single donor of this group is the financier Lubov Chernukhin, who has donated £700,000. A British national since 2011, she is married to Vladimir Chernukhin, a former deputy finance minister under Putin.

Documents published in the Pandora papers in October suggest he was allowed to leave Russia in 2004 with assets worth about $500m (£366m) and retain Russian business connections.
— Guardian - Tory Party funding linked to Russia

Hopefully it's mostly a political scare, than anything beyond that. — Manuel

It's a political scare everywhere else than in Ukraine, where it is the widening of the war that has already gone on for years.

It is exactly the quality that treating Putin like a cartoon villain deserves. A cartoon response. — StreetlightX

I'm not. I don't think you know enough about Putin, his ambitions, the geopolitics of those ambitions and how Russia functions. I would say, it's easier to understand all of this when the proximity of this conflict is very close to home. It actually affects stuff around Europe and it's not some cartoon villain analysis of Putin. That's a ridiculous perspective.

Yeah, that's how it is now.

But it could expand. I'm aware Ukraine now has significantly better weaponry than they did back with the Crimea situation, but, I don't think Ukraine can do too much to Russia's military.

So they may ask for help. Who is willing to help them help beyond giving them weapons, as in offering troops, is not too clear. Maybe neighboring countries.

...if they want to give severe sanctions, I'd imagine most oligarchs would be involved — Manuel

A big 'If' indeed. See my post above as to why that ain't happening...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/658276

I'm aware Ukraine now has significantly better weaponry than they did back with the Crimea situation, but, I don't think Ukraine can do too much to Russia's military. — Manuel

Re: Russia v Ukraine.
You can see key military comparisons and numbers in the article posted here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/658241

How do the militaries compare?
Any invasion by Russia into Ukraine will pit the Kremlin’s large, recently modernised military against an adversary largely using older versions of the same or similar equipment, dating back to the Soviet era. Russia has significant numerical advantages on land and in particular in air and at sea, although the Ukrainians would be defending their homeland. — Guardian

Bah, Boris Johnson is an effing clown.

Not surprising to see such donations being given. But then this is all posturing from the UK.

Thanks for sharing that info.



If that happens, I can't imagine more countries not getting involved, maybe Poland.

We'll find out soon enough if an attack goes off.

Bah, Boris Johnson is an effing clown. — Manuel

Nah. He is a dangerous fucking bastard :rage:

Thanks for sharing that info. — Manuel

Thanks for starting the thread and great discussion :up:

Everyone is pointing out how Russia is a "security risk", it's political lingo. No one can speak in the way you require because of diplomacy. — Christoffer

OK. Still not getting anything on who these 'everyone' are.

Aren't you suppose to compare "America" to "Russia"? Then apply Soviet history and a guy named Putin who dream Soviet dreams, of reclaiming that power. — Christoffer

No. Russia has undergone massive regime changes since then, the US is still run by the same people. I'm comparing regimes because, you know, the soil they happen to stand on doesn't make so much difference.

Who the fuck said anything about democracy? — Christoffer

You did.

We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy — Christoffer

Thus far the grand total of harms you've given us anything concrete (semi-concrete, anyway) about is that Putin is not democratic. The rest has been unsourced speculation about his future intentions.

What does this have to do with anything I'm saying about Putin and Russia? Your argument is essentially: "because US is really bad, has been really bad and will probably be bad in the future... therefore we don't have to worry about Putin and Russia?" — Christoffer

Yes. Because "worrying about Putin" doesn't happen in a vacuum. We can't just not not do anything about Ukraine, if you want action, that action is going to be US led, so the track record of the US is fundamentally important here. Its the alternative you're advocating in "worrying about Putin".

US involvement in foreign wars has been an almost unmitigated disaster for everyone except the arms and reconstruction industries (who've both done very well out of it, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence). It's no good pointing a finger at Putin and crying "bad man", you need to work out what the alternative to inaction is and whether anyone is actually going to be better off that way.

Again, what are you talking about? What has this to do with the current geopolitical conflicts? — Christoffer

Everything. Geopolitical conflicts don't happen in a vacuum, they don't spring out of thin air. the arms industry don't spend millions (5 million in Europe, ten times that in America) on lobbying on a whim, a vague hope that politics will just happen to turn out favouring war.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't address what is happening at the moment because of starving people elsewhere? What about the thousands of people who will be killed if Putin does a full-scale invasion? What about if he doesn't stop there? What if he needs to fulfill the Soviet dream even further? THIS is why you are naive, you don't understand what is really going on. — Christoffer

What if, what if , what if... Do you even stop to think. You're advocating starting a war on the off-chance that your target might start one. And to not even see the link... Huge numbers of those children are starving because of American foreign policy. Again, to think these things are not connected. Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... you think each is just coincidentally increasing, unrelated to the others?

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones. — StreetlightX

Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... — Isaac

That's exactly what some people on here refuse to understand, that imperialism comes in many forms and shapes: financial, economic, political, cultural, etc., etc., not just military.

As British Foreign Secretary Eden put it to Parliament in 1951:

We have also the fact that all through these years gradually we have drawn Germany—this greater part of Germany [US-UK-controlled West Germany] —into the Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany into the Schuman Plan, and into every sort and kind of contact—political, economic, literary, cultural of every sort and kind ....

Foreign Affairs: 20 Nov 1951: House of Commons debates

This was done through a combination of (1) military threats (“the Russians will come and get you if you don’t comply”), (2) manipulation of public opinion through mass propaganda, (3) influence on trade unions, political parties, and political leaders through bribes, (4) financial and economic incentives (like Marshall Plan aid), etc.

And this is the template America and its British poodle (or, more precisely, Wall Street and the City of London), have been using ever since through the instruments they have created for the purpose: World Bank, IMF, EU, NATO, OECD, etc.

Countries are lured with financial or economic incentives after which they are drawn into a spiderweb of agreements, treaties, rules, regulations, and laws, often without the general public even being aware. Even governments may be unaware of all the legal, financial, and economic ramifications until it’s too late.

And, of course, we know that the current and proposed sanctions on Russia are being enforced by the same agents of capitalist imperialism, namely America and Britain, and their ever-expanding Euro-Atlantic Empire .... :smile:

As for Germany, it always obediently follows US-UK orders, no matter what government is in charge, and even when it goes against its own interests.

Or do you really think NATO wants to somehow undermine the health of the Russian state? — frank

NATO needs a reason for existing. It needs enemies. If there aren't any, it makes them.


And the West has always despised the Slavic people, considering them second-class people. Biden is part of a tradition that is picking up where Hitler left off.

You did. — Isaac

Ok, fair, but I didn't say that democracy is some kind of bright beacon, it is still the ONLY system that has led nations to a more balanced life for the people with less corruption endangering that people. US isn't the only nation in the world with "democracy", so your argument of pointing out "democracy" being "bad" as well does not really matter if my argument was that Russia just plays theatre of the nation being a democracy. To imprison and kill anyone that oppose you and call yourself a democracy, that isn't being done, even in a corrupt nation as the US.

And that is my point. Russia has a dictator while people actually fall for the lie that they have elections that in any way or form is true democracy.

No. Russia has undergone massive regime changes since then, the US is still run by the same people. I'm comparing regimes because, you know, the soil they happen to stand on doesn't make so much difference. — Isaac

Really? The oligarchs got fat rich and then Putin took that wealth and gave it to his friends while most of Russia is in poverty. You only see the rich front that Putin wants you to see... Sounds an awful lot like the corrupt top 1% of the Soviet regime to me, just in new clothes. What exactly is different except the form of government on paper? It's just as corrupt as it's ever been, but maybe you fall for the propaganda more today when "communism" isn't a dirty word that can be slapped onto them.

Yes. Because "worrying about Putin" doesn't happen in a vacuum. We can't just not not do anything about Ukraine, if you want action, that action is going to be US led, so the track record of the US is fundamentally important here. Its the alternative you're advocating in "worrying about Putin". — Isaac

You think that we're not acting in Sweden right now? We're pulling large funds to increase our military, we have the island of Gotland that is a target of Russia to seize the Baltic sea area. You think US is the only one acting on this? You think no one else is affected?

It's no good pointing a finger at Putin and crying "bad man", you need to work out what the alternative to inaction is and whether anyone is actually going to be better off that way. — Isaac

The alternative for us in Europe is to be actually threatened by Russia if no action is taken. The US is an ally in this. Putin IS a bad man, his threats are out of date, his ideas are delusional misrepresentations of history.

Everything. Geopolitical conflicts don't happen in a vacuum, they don't spring out of thin air. the arms industry don't spend millions (5 million in Europe, ten times that in America) on lobbying on a whim, a vague hope that politics will just happen to turn out favouring war. — Isaac

Are you sure you have good insight into what Putin is doing and why? I've already explained the reasons for this conflict and you don't seem to get it. Listen to the experts on Russia and Putin, you are babbling about things that doesn't have anything to do with what Putin is doing. That is a problem. You have buried your head into reasons that don't compute with what Putin's ambitions actually are. He wants to rebuild the power of Soviet, that's his goal here. Figure out the consequences of those dreams.

You're advocating starting a war on the off-chance that your target might start one. And to not even see the link... Huge numbers of those children are starving because of American foreign policy. Again, to think these things are not connected. Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... you think each is just coincidentally increasing, unrelated to the others? — Isaac

I have not advocated starting a war. I couldn't give a fuck about the US, we in Europe are the ones who are threatened by Russia's actions. US is an ally that we work together with to try and deescalate the conflict. You don't seem to understand the actual conflict that is going on right now, it's not about US interests, it's about the security of Europe, which the US is an ally with. It's about not letting a lunatic like Putin push ambitions of creating a new Soviet-style regime onto this place.

But I guess that if people have been debating US foreign policies for a long time and criticized it for the horrors it created, it's easy to just scream IMPERIALISM, every time something happens in the world. And I agree, USA is really a villain internationally. This time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. I don't know where you live, but if you lived in close proximity to Russia, you would not be so blatantly dismissive of Putin's actions. The US might be a really bad player on the world state, but if you use that as an argument defending Russia and Putin at this time you are really not in the game of what is actually going on.

it is still the ONLY system that has led nations to a more balanced life for the people with less corruption endangering that people. US isn't the only nation in the world with "democracy", so your argument of pointing out "democracy" being "bad" as well does not really matter if my argument was that Russia just plays theatre of the nation being a democracy. To imprison and kill anyone that oppose you and call yourself a democracy, that isn't being done, even in a corrupt nation as the US. — Christoffer

The point was that if all Russia is guilty of is not being a proper democracy then such a crime pales into insignificance when compared to massive death and immiseration that democracies like the US have engendered.

Sounds an awful lot like the corrupt top 1% of the Soviet regime to me, just in new clothes. What exactly is different except the form of government on paper? — Christoffer

By that notion (rich elite gets richer off the backs of poor workers) then every government ever is basically the same, nothing to chose between them. But regardless, you want to include the holocaust in Europe's track record? The genocide of the Native Americans in the US's?

You think that we're not acting in Sweden right now? We're pulling large funds to increase our military, we have the island of Gotland that is a target of Russia to seize the Baltic sea area. You think US is the only one acting on this? You think no one else is affected? — Christoffer

I didn't say 'only', I said 'led'.

The alternative for us in Europe is to be actually threatened by Russia if no action is taken. The US is an ally in this. Putin IS a bad man, his threats are out of date, his ideas are delusional misrepresentations of history. — Christoffer

I asked you what the alternative was to inaction. What do we do about the fact that Putin is a bad man? How are you measuring the consequences of those proposals to ensure they're not worse then things are as they stand?

I've already explained the reasons for this conflict and you don't seem to get it. — Christoffer

What is it about this site which seems to attract people who can't tell the difference between their own opinion and what is actually the case. You've told me what you think is the case, you haven't 'explained' anything.

Listen to the experts on Russia and Putin — Christoffer

You mean like Amb. Jack Matlock (US ambassador to the USSR from 1987-1991) who said

It seems to me that recognition of the two breakaway republics represent Putin’s current aim. That, plus negotiations that may induce the US to remove missile defense installations from EE. (This is his real sore point, and one that would be rational to meet.) …

I could not and cannot imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to invade Ukraine, bomb its cities, etc.,

..or have I gone and chosen the wrong expert again? I'm always doing that.

I have not advocated starting a war. — Christoffer

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter?

US is an ally that we work together with to try and deescalate the conflict. — Christoffer

Sorry, have to been to Earth recently? Have you noticed anything about the US's ability to de-escalate? Any kind of trend?

I agree, USA is really a villain internationally. This time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. — Christoffer

Funny how much I'm hearing that recently. "Yeah, the corporations are bad, big business is bad, big Pharma, the US military complex...all terrible..but not this time. This time they're doing it all out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of mankind. This time it's different." You're like victims of domestic abuse. "This time he really wants me back, he's changed". It's disturbing.

And the West has always despised the Slavic people, considering them second-class people. Biden is part of a tradition that is picking up where Hitler left off. — baker

The Germans in general looked down on Slavic people long before Hitler. This was because Germans were better warriors than the Slavs (in fact, the best in all Europe) and the Slavs had acquired a reputation for being “slaves” after being defeated by the Greeks and the Germans, and sold into slavery for centuries.

This was continued into early modern times with Slavs being captured by Mongols (Tatars) and Turks and sold on the slave markets of Crimea and other parts of the Ottoman Empire (Greek sklabos, Latin sclavus, from Slavonic slověne, “Slavic person”):

Slave from Middle English, from Old French sclave, from Medieval Latin sclāvus (“slave”), from Late Latin Sclāvus (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages. The Latin word is from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβος (Sklábos)

slave - Wiktionary

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

Russia’s biggest mistake of all times was to gang up with England against Germany in WW1 after being promised Constantinople and other bits of the Ottoman Empire by the British - which, of course, it never got!

This resulted in Britain and America winning the war and Germany being enslaved. Now it’s Russia’s turn to be enslaved by the same imperialist powers. Money rules the world. Quite simple, really.

But meditation is said to help alleviate anxiety, so you really have nothing to worry about .... :wink:

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter? — Isaac

:rofl:

Dear Sir,

Please stop. This is not helping.

Sincerely,

The West

I understand that. But don't you agree that at this time, NATO has no desire to destabilize or threaten Russia in any way? — frank

Do you agree that NATO has primarily sought to limit Russian expansion? Or do you really think NATO wants to somehow undermine the health of the Russian state? — frank

Their intentions are almost irrelevant seeing as integrating Ukraine shifts the balance of power in the region in their favour and effectively increases the threat against Russia seeing as they are its primary military adversary.

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones. — StreetlightX

Absolutely. I get that. So Ukraine just gets to be a pawn. — frank

That sums it up for me, essentially

And maybe invasion is the only way to draw a line in the sand.

But the irony is that if Russia hurts its own economy by drawing this line, it doesn't really win in the end. — frank

There is no win win here. It's a matter of priorities and Russia (in its eyes) prioritizing security over economic concerns.

Can you expand more on this, or where I might find more information, thanks. — Amity

I'm not drawing from any speciific sources here, but if I find something good I'll send it your way. There are plenty of helpful links in this thread too. @jamalrob and @StreetlightX are likely better versed than me anyway.

Immediate conflict and invasion have direct and dire consequences to the wellbeing of Ukrainians than any potential transformation has. Right now, civilians will have to flee, fight or be killed.
I'm not seeing how it even compares...

Putin's aggressive actions and belligerent behaviour are about as far from reasonable as you can get. NATO's role I thought more defensive...and protective? — Amity

Even if NATO's nominal role is protective (and almost every military force in the world styles itself this way, falling under the auspices of "defence" departments etc), its expansion around the borders of an adversary is aggressive. Russia's perspective here is no different than the perspective of the US with regard to unfriendly states, with the major difference being the US considers its sphere of influence to be much wider. So, yes, the direct consequences of invasion are more dire than a mere threat but knowing the likely results of the threat, why does NATO insist on it? The assignation of blame isn't all that straightforward.