Actually the game is two-fold; there's Russian blame NATO and there's Western blame NATO critics. — Baden

Personally, I blame the Australians.

The alternative to your view is that the stand-off is beyond any possible bluff by any of the parties with this capacity for destruction.

It does not permit the articulation of new circumstances. it is a standing wave of the same old shit.

Well, given human psychology, it's simply not possible to always call or even interpret a bluff. You may get it right, say, 10 times in a row, but not always - it's not sustainable.

My view would be to get rid of all of them, we already have plenty of ways of destroying each other with good old fashion bombs.

But that's not the reality of this situation. Heck, if this war weren't being done by a nuclear power, I'm almost certain that it would not be making huge news all over. But it is, so, it's what we've got to deal with when talking about this issue.

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.

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...

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.

Yes: MAD is still crazy after all these years.

I'm not so worried about V. Putin saving face as I am his being (or feeling) cornered or trapped by NATO, the EU and Ukraine. Russia is by no means cornered at this point, but it's conceivable that... say, if economic warfare intensified, NATO sent forces into Ukraine and Belorussia, the EU -- to the extent the it isn't coextensive with NATO -- sent more forces to join NATO, and maybe Turkey (part of NATO) mined the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Putin and his military might feel they were cornered, at least as far as conventional warfare was concerned. This is the danger point where a limited tactical use of even one nuclear weapon against NATO or against Russia could trigger a tit-for-tat exchange, and pretty quickly (say, in less than an hour) result in many atomic weapons being launched.

That could be the end of our species for a long time, or forever, and the end of many other species as well.

The American Defense Department's estimations of nuclear destruction (at least as far back as Ellsberg's revelations are concerned) were way too "sanitary". The calculated destruction on the basis of blast damage and fallout. What they left out of their estimation was fire (conflagration, really) caused by the blasts. The fire storms in target areas would likely significantly raise the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (CO2 being the least of it). The vast amount of dust and soot might counteract global warming for a period of decades, but then global warming would suddenly rebound.

For the most part, people in the Industrialized North (Europe, North America, Japan, northern Asia) would not have to worry about all this because we would either be dead or wishing we were dead already. The Developing South would find its development brought to a screeching halt, and then be slammed into reverse. The most the Developing South could hope for is a less sudden demise.

Yes, the fallout of the nuclear weapon use would be what would assure most of us would die.

Anything can happen in this war though the brunt of the sanctions will be felt in a few weeks. Either the Ukraine "mission" is finished or they're going to be extremely squeezed. NATO is not going to apply a no fly zone, they know what this would entail. But if they send more troops to the Ukraine border, or close to it, it's very risky.

Save for China mostly, and perhaps India, Russia is very isolated. It's going to have to be a kind of "Cuban Missile Crisis" solution - each side can claim "victory" of some sort. If that's denied to Russia, or they can't find a way to turn the situation into a "success", then it will be very dangerous. Heck, it's already dangerous now.

Let's cross our fingers we can avoid catastrophe.

But at this point, given these political times, anything can happen... — Manuel

My prediction: there will be a resurgence of covid lockdowns and mask mandates that will sideline aggressions on both sides

Personally, I blame the Australians. — Olivier5

The Dutch!

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.

Personally, I blame the Australians.
— Olivier5

The Dutch! — jorndoe

The Dutch may have played a minor role, but I know better than trusting the Australians with anything. They certainly didn't do much to stop the escalation, which should give us a clue! And when you think about it, who has an interest in nuking the entire northern hemisphere, if not the Australians?...

[clue in the violins from the Psycho soundtrack]

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. — FreeEmotion

US invasion of Iraq was a farce. It was either a strategy to "fool" the world that an invasion was needed, or just the worst intel operators ever.

But even if the US invasion should be considered a violation, Putin's war is on another level. The key differences are that US didn't invade to make Iraq into a new state of the US. If anything, they just wanted the oil. The second, and most important thing, is that the US actively tried to avoid collateral damage. When it happened, there were major internal criticism, major criticism from the public and it was never handled like it didn't happen. Putin just aims his missiles straight into populated areas with civilians and just doesn't care. The only reason civilians aren't killed more is because there are some Russian soldiers actually thinking that driving over civilians with tanks is a bad thing. Putin and his minions just don't care if civilians die. If the only way to conquer Ukraine was to just level a city filled with civilians, he would do it. The only reason he isn't doing it is that he needs to convince the Ukrainians to be little Russians to big Russia (as in the manifesto). He's the old-style dictator who shoots civilians and hopes they'll still love him when this is over.

So I wouldn't say that those two invasions were the same, it's not black and white and if Iraq was dark grey, this war is pitch black.

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.

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. — FreeEmotion

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.

At the moment, Mariupol is completely surrounded. People talk of a Leningradsituation. If this happens, Putin might have close to a million civilian casualties.

We don’t have, and won’t have, all the facts for a long, long, long time to come.

Putin stated quite clearly his concerns (valid or not doesn’t matter really). The possible reaction against what he was concerned about was not taken seriously. Putin has remained fairly consistent with his view and the west just didn’t expect him to go this far.

So I do kind of agree that it is pointless to blame one side or another. There were groups in Ukraine that burnt pro Russian protesters to death and there has been an ongoing war for 8 years in Eastern Ukraine (with very low coverage from western media).

To play Devil’s advocate this could be framed as a way of ending the war in Ukraine (that has been ongoing for nearly a decade) as no one else appeared to have been having much success and it is right on their border.

Point being there is nuance to what has led to this conflict that seems to have been purposefully ignored in certain areas by both sides for propagandist reasons. We can just try to read between the lines and look for a way to resolve this diplomatically rather than with conflict. I would like to UN forces embedded deep into Ukraine to observe, aid and protect civilians - even though the UN is not by any means always successful it does make some difference sometimes.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all.

My biggest concern is that in the western world there appears to me to be an underlying frustration in the populace regarding equality and rights (across the group spectra of sex, gender and political stance) that makes people feel like they need to find a quick and easy reaction and to draw lines of good and evil so as to take sides. If this psychological analysis is correct then it will make it far easier for nations to mobilise enough of the populace into military action via a ‘good versus evil’ narrative.

Generally I strongly believe a great many people are desperate to do something ‘good’ and fight with their all on the side of ‘good’. The problem lying in this is knowing what is the ‘better’/‘good’ side and the need/bias to reinforce what one sees as ‘better’/‘good’. If the political powers can play on this issue let’s just hope they don’t and/or enough people in the general populace refuse it and make others think twice.

The road to hell … the more easily one can frame a side as wholly good or evil the closer we get to hell on Earth. Metaphorically speaking.

I feel like a lot of this is more or less a message to who comes after Putin as I cannot see him continuing for much longer (as in he will have to step back in his role as leader within the next decade).

As far as I've read, they matched Russia's nuclear threat level. — Manuel

Really? What is your source for this? I think it would be frontline news.

And contrary to what New York Times reported:

When Vladimir V. Putin declared Sunday that he was putting his nuclear forces into “special combat readiness” — a heightened alert status reminiscent of some of the most dangerous moments of the Cold War — President Biden and his aides had a choice.

They could match the move and put American forces on Defcon 3 — known to moviegoers as that moment when the Air Force rolls out bombers, and nuclear silos and submarines are put on high alert. Or the president could largely ignore it, sending out aides to portray Mr. Putin as once again manufacturing a menace, threatening Armageddon for a war he started without provocation.

For now, at least, Mr. Biden chose to de-escalate.

Sadly, President Biden didn't personally inform me of his atomic intentions — Bitter Crank

I think that raising the DEFCON level wouldn't and couldn't be done secretly. It simply would have such effects that in our time (and in the US) could hardly be kept secret. Besides, with nukes everything is public posturing. Although I'm very well aware of the scare that Able Archer '83 caused the Soviets.

With Russia, the levels are the following:

1. CONSTANT
2. ELEVATED
3. MILITARY DANGER
4. FULL

Now Putin is at 2. Or something like that.

The US Defcon system:

Usually Russia doesn't have so many aircraft, and combat aircraft, breaching Swedish airspace. Yet the timing now is telling:

STOCKHOLM, March 2 (Reuters) - Four Russian fighter jets briefly entered Swedish territory over the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, the Swedish Armed Forces said, sparking a swift condemnation from Sweden's defence minister.

Two Russian SU27 and two SU24 fighter jets briefly entered Swedish airspace east of the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Armed Forces said in a statement, adding that Swedish JAS 39 Gripen jets were sent to document the violation.

Meanwhile, Russians hold their line...

MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday he believed some foreign leaders were preparing for war against Russia and that Moscow would press on with its military operation in Ukraine until "the end".

Lavrov also said Russia had no thoughts of nuclear war.

Offering no evidence to back up his remarks in an interview with state television, a week after Russian invaded Ukraine, he also accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, an ethnic Jew, of presiding over "a society where Nazism is flourishing".

STOCKHOLM, March 2 (Reuters) - Four Russian fighter jets briefly entered Swedish territory over the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, the Swedish Armed Forces said, sparking a swift condemnation from Sweden's defence minister.

Two Russian SU27 and two SU24 fighter jets briefly entered Swedish airspace east of the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Armed Forces said in a statement, adding that Swedish JAS 39 Gripen jets were sent to document the violation. — ssu

Yes, things have been on a higher alert level since this. Fortunately, we have pretty fast response times for this. If they had any intention other than "making a statement", they would have been shot down before they were even close to Gotland.

It's ironic that this happens at the same time as I was writing in here about reasons to join NATO for Sweden and Finland as an act of defense against Russian aggression. Maybe people could understand why nations want to join NATO now instead of pushing the bullshit narrative of the US forcing such things upon us. If these fighter jets had breeched our airspace while we were part of NATO, that would have been a serious matter for Russia that they can't just talk themselves out of.

US invasion of Iraq was a farce. It was either a strategy to "fool" the world that an invasion was needed, or just the worst intel operators ever. — Christoffer

This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there.

The key differences are that US didn't invade to make Iraq into a new state of the US. If anything, they just wanted the oil. — Christoffer

I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all. — I like sushi

Putin will not back down like that. This is not how Putin's regime works. They're closer to how any other authoritarian regime worked during the 20th century than any modern democratic one. Putin is closer to Hitler in this regard, having his trusted inner circle, an extreme protective machine around him, total control over the news (and now even more when they've shut down any independent news stations), and killing or imprisoning people who oppose him. Do you really think that Putin would "step down"?

And Russia has no right to demand a free nation not to join NATO. They can ask them not to in a diplomatic fashion, but they can't demand anything. Just like Russia can't demand Sweden or Finland not to join NATO. Because of the latest fighter jet incident here in Sweden, I'm thinking that joining NATO isn't just good for security, it would also be a big fuck you to Putin and his minions.

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.

This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. If the intel had been correct, it might actually have been warranted, otherwise, the nation might have become another North Korea, but in a far more dangerous place so close to Europe. Even if it's questionable if an invasion would have been necessary anyway, it would at least have had an intention that far outweighs anything of what actually happened.

I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". This was never the long-term intention with Iraq, regardless of initial intentions for the invasion. And the focus was on the leader and change in the political system. Of course everything of that failed in the long term, as it usually does when the US tries it. But it's easy to also forget all the people who were actually killed and terrorized by Saddam in Iraq and who welcomed the invasion and removal of him. What I mean is that the invasion of Iraq is in no way comparable to either the intentions or methods in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is a massive attack on a free nation with the intent of claiming it and reforming it into the Russian empire with Putin as their leader.

They picked one hell of an opponent to fight for freedom against. — FreeEmotion

How did THEY pick the opponent? Does the country being invaded get to pick who's invading them?

I think NATO is pushing the Ukrainian president on, as a pawn in their hands - his pleas for help were not answered in time. — FreeEmotion

NATO cannot fight in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance only for its member states. They don't attack or go into a non-member nation to help out. I don't understand why people find this hard to understand? NATO only initiate combat if one of their member-nations are attacked and they can't do anything in Ukraine since they're not members. Doesn't matter if they plea for help.

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. — FreeEmotion

So they should just roll over and be fucked by Putin then? You don't understand people fighting for their lives and freedom? This is Putin's crime, he has no right whatsoever, he breaks international law, almost the entire UN condemns the invasion and any I find it horrifying that people even consider letting Putin just take Ukraine in order to ceasefire.

Haven't we learned what happens when we give a narcissistic authoritarian dictator what he wants? Haven't the 20th century shown us just what happens if we just give him free reign? If this goes on, then Putin will be on a hit list. The entire world will hunt him and his minions down. Russia will probably become a closed nation with extreme totalitarian standards. When I propose attacking Putin and his minions himself, it's not just to help Ukraine, it's also to free Russia. People in Russia need to be free of Putin. Just look at how many oppose the war, oppose Putin, even risking their own life and freedom doing it.

Why are people still making the mistake of appeasement against people who rise to dangerous levels of power? And only when that power and terror has reached too far do people do anything. Enough is enough, there's only one way to fix this situation, even if it's extremely hard and complex.

It's ironic that this happens at the same time as I was writing in here about reasons to join NATO for Sweden and Finland as an act of defense against Russian aggression. Maybe people could understand why nations want to join NATO now instead of pushing the bullshit narrative of the US forcing such things upon us. If these fighter jets had breeched our airspace while we were part of NATO, that would have been a serious matter for Russia that they can't just talk themselves out of. — Christoffer

Our President Niinistö going to Washington tomorrow to meet Biden.

President of the Republic of Finland Sauli Niinistö will make a working visit to the United States and meet President of the United States Joseph R. Biden in Washington D.C. on Friday, 4 March 2022.

At the meeting, to be held in the White House, the Presidents will discuss Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the effects of the war on the European security order, and bilateral cooperation between Finland and the United States.

In addition to meeting President Biden, President Niinistö’s programme includes meetings with several political actors. The tight travel schedule will cover approximately one day.

For the first time (like there in Sweden), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically.

Did you notice what the US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield spoke in the UN yesterday?

And now, it appears Russia is preparing to increase the brutality of its campaign against Ukraine. * We all have seen the 40-mile-long lethal convoy charging toward Kyiv. President Putin continues to escalate – putting Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert, threatening to invade Finland and Sweden. At every step of the war, Russia has betrayed the United Nations. Russia’s actions go against everything this body stands for.

:brow:

I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. The only thing the Russians have consistently said is that there will definately be strong repercussions and they don't rule out a military response. Now, an invasion on the scale of military responses is quite heavy. And basically their focus in on Ukraine.

For the first time (like there), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically. — ssu

It's the same in Sweden, polls have shifted. It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever). So I can understand how our prime minister has an extremely hard choice to make. If WWIII breaks out, without us in NATO, we could do the same as before, just chilling out and then have one of the best economies in the world when everyone else is in rubble. But if we join NATO, we would be forced to fight in any conflict NATO ends up in.

But I think it's worth it. Russia, or rather Putin, is such a manchild that it's too unpredictable to stay out. And if WWIII involves nukes, it doesn't matter if everyone else around us gets hit, the fallout will still kill us and everyone else. So for regular warfare, it would be rational to be part of NATO. But another thing is that if Finland joins, we might be well off anyway. I'm not sure it's very strategic for Russia to invade Sweden when it's pretty much encircled with NATO members. It's a very unstrategic place to invade and the only fallback is the Baltic sea.

So I don't know what's the best course of action for Sweden. I generally think NATO is the best choice, it creates a large border towards Russia that Russia will never be able to attack other than with nukes, but that's endgame anyway so it doesn't matter who you are.

I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. — ssu

I think it was a misinterpretation of when Russia threatened us. Russia never said "invade", they just threatened. It could mean firing missiles or something, who knows, some retaliation because we sent weapons to Ukraine.

At this time, it has become pretty clear that Russia is just threatening, with nukes, with forces or whatever. They're desperate. If they were to ever attack, they would have two fronts, one in Ukraine and one in the north, diluting their military. With the economy crashing and war chest being in trouble, it's close to impossible for them to do something like that. And if they attack any NATO member, it's gonna be like having a swarm of bees attacking Russia. It's gonna flatten the entire nation. Putin would be hunted down, probably into the same fate as Hitler, offing himself in a bunker. The only viable option for them would then be nukes, but that would end everything, which, because I feel like Putin is just a crazy mentally challenged manchild, whatever credit other people like to give him, is a real risk. If he's cornered into his bunker and everyone wants him dead, then he might as well fire off everything. And this is why he is in my opinion the biggest risk of total annihilation we have. It's why I have no moral problem with offing him.

Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. — Christoffer

Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. This is why we have to include the role of intention, even if it's some sort of subconsciously affected intention, causing paranoia, or some irrational fear. A bump in the night is heard as a ghost. I know the ghost is here, I have proof, I heard it.

Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". — Christoffer

I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret.

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces. — ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really.

Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bad intel could be the same as people misinterpreting surveillence information. On top of that, this info going up the chain from the analysts at CIA to Bush and him only getting the info that there are weapons of mass destruction there. That can absolutely happen and give reason to invade, however stupid or lack of judgment that is. We still don't know if it was bad intel or intentional play of words to justify it.
If intelligence agencies were to only act on 100% proven intel, we would have had a lot of shit happening in the world because almost nothing was prevented. We can criticize and blame these agencies all over the world for many things, but... and I have actual sources for this... there are things happening all the time that gets prevented by them. If they only act on 100% verified information, it could slip through a lot of bad things happening.

But the intel about weapons of mass destruction was, as said, either intentional play with words, or just one of the worst fuckups of intel gathering and processing we've seen.

I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the leaked documents, the sources and intel from within Kreml so on and so forth do not point towards such a conclusion? I guess it's easy to dismiss anything by arguing like that, but what is most likely? What everything points towards (not only what he says, but everything else as well), or someone speculating about Putin as if he was a cardboard cutout standard world leader figure with predictable methods? That he is a strategist does not mean that everything people have dug up on him and his mindset is wrong. You can't exist as a world leader for over 20 years without information slipping away.

Even if Ukraine is a product of The West's "cold war mentality" as the CCP would call it, do posters here genuinely think that the Russian-Ukraine war is too heavy of a price to pay for the sovereignty and democracy of Ukraine? Do they believe Ukrainian people would think that...? I don't know why there's so much talk about that in this thread about NATO. Ukrainians wanted to join NATO because Russia annexed Crimea and effectively went to war with Ukraine in 2014. This was in response to Russia's puppet government being ousted in a coup. Putin has many reasons to want to invade Ukraine. Legacy, history, gas, oil, etc.

Whether you want the world to abandon Ukraine to be a Russian satellite or to choose to act in a way that leads Ukraine into conflict with Russia, there's no thornless path.