Repeated post.

It’s definitely a form of collective punishment. Some big video game producers are even removing Russian sports teams from their games, just to show how silly it’s getting, and dangerous indeed. Virtue-signalling into tyranny. Where I live Russian students are unable to access their funds because of state sanctions, and a Russian Orthodox Church was vandalized with red paint. What’s next?

Putin is against Ukraine joining NATO because he believes that Ukraine might use military forces against Russia to reclaim the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014, or to reclaim parts in eastern Ukraine that are controlled by Russian-backed separatists.

“Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations.” Should we fight NATO then? Has anyone thought about it?” Putin said during a press conference at the Kremlin with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. — One World News

Russia-Ukraine War: Who Will Get The Benefits From the Ongoing Crisis?
Rohit Upadhyay Rohit Upadhyay February 28, 2022

No, Mr. President, I confess I did not think of that. Looks like NATO and you have the strategy all figured out. And what about the people of Ukraine, pawns on the chessboard of battle? This thing is beginning to look like a proxy war.

FYI, a couple of Visual Capitalist overviews:

• Visualizing Ukraine’s Top Trading Partners and Products (Mar 3, 2022)

• Map Explainer: Key Facts About Ukraine (Feb 23, 2022)

Meanwhile...

• BBC Suspends Journalism In Russia After Passing Of Draconian Censorship Law Attacking Independent Media As “Foreign Agents” (Mar 4, 2022)

• Russia Takes Censorship to New Extremes, Stifling War Coverage (Mar 4, 2022)

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue). — boethius

Looks like it.

The same thing is happening in Ukraine. "The Russian advance has stalled"; "the Russians will soon control Black Sea ports and shipping"; "Ukrainian regular troops and volunteers are fighting very effectively"; "the Ukrainians are likely to win"; "the Ukrainians are likely to lose"; and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

It shows doesn't it, the sheer desperation and moral bankruptcy of the media enterprise, the shameless one sided approach. It is a good test of mental fortitude to watch all the news channels and see the masks come off one by one.

I only fear the day when occupation is performed behind the scenes, not through wars or fake journalism but in ways we cannot see.

Trading partners Ukraine:

Russia $7.2B 37% 63%

Great visuals. God be with the people of Ukraine and Russia.

Furthermore, Ukraine is rich in natural resources, particularly in mineral deposits. It possesses the world’s largest reserves of commercial-grade iron ore—30 billion tonnes of ore or around one-fifth of the global total. It’s also worth noting that Ukraine ranks second in terms of known natural gas reserves in Europe, which today remain largely untapped. — Visuals

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-explainer-ukraine/

the sheer desperation and moral bankruptcy of the media enterprise — FreeEmotion

Always bear in mind that most of the media are for profit enterprises. They are not staffed by philosophers (like that would help) or public intellectuals. Reporters, commentators, hosts, producers, etc. possess varying levels of depth and insightfulness. If a big war had broken out between Myanmar and Thailand instead of between Ukraine and Russia, the same batch of people (more or less) would have descended on Bangkok and started to report back.

William Shirer, a CBS radio reporter, did such a great job reporting on WWII in Europe because he had been there for several years before it started. Eleanor Beardsley, NPR reporter, has reported from Paris for years. She was suddenly reporting from Kyiv / Kiev. I like Ms. Beardsley, but how much background can a reporter collect during the flight from Paris to Kyiv? Lyse Doucet, a BBC reporter (thick Irish accent, Canadian, apparently) bounces all over the world, disaster to disaster. Same show, different corpses.

just to show how silly it’s getting — NOS4A2

:up:

Always bear in mind that most of the media are for profit enterprises. They are not staffed by philosophers (like that would help) or public intellectuals. Reporters, commentators, hosts, producers, etc. possess varying levels of depth and insightfulness. If a big war had broken out between Myanmar and Thailand instead of between Ukraine and Russia, the same batch of people (more or less) would have descended on Bangkok and started to report back. — Bitter Crank

:fire:

This is what people call either-or thinking. Media oulets/organizations seem to think that it's either entertainment OR information (the exclusive OR). Logicians, since ages, knew/know that it (news) can be made both entertaining and informative (the inclusive OR).

Good point. But entertainment is easier than instruction. I don't want to claim that in "the good old days" news media were all about instruction. What was the case, I think, is that instruction played a significantly larger role than it does now. That isn't to say there was no bias; just that news organizations were more serious about providing information, and not just amusement.

Of course, if it doesn't affect the viewer, disaster information is as entertaining as a sitcom. It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away.

If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. — FreeEmotion

First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria.

Second, it's not if they existed. Iraqi missiles never had the range to hit London. Yet the nuclear weapons program did exist, he did use chemical weapons against Iranians and the Kurds. Hence there's no potentiality of them. Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it. And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.

Similar false propaganda like the neo-nazi argument or that a genocide is (was) perpetrated by the Ukrainians in the Donbas.

In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. — FreeEmotion

Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself.

If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism.



Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!

To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous.

Situation of the refugees. That one million have fled in a week out of 44 million tells about the intensity of the war. And what is also telling is the amount of volunteers going to fight to Ukraine. Something similar to the Spanish Civil War, actually. Things are really starting to be as in the 1930's.

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).

When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me. — boethius

A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO.

The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with.

First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria. — ssu

Ok, I stand corrected.

Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it — ssu

If the Gulf War had not happened]

it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? Israel and the US has found a way to prevent that without going to war, so that is a moot point.

And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.[/quote

I will take your word for it, I am not sure of those facts, how much was concocted.
— ssu

Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself. — ssu

This is where the fine distinction has to be made on two counts: firstly, I have no access to Russian intelligence. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. I do not know the extent of the threat. Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. Ask any military strategist you know, anyone who knows about history what exactly Russia is concerned about.

What kind of threat does any country pose to the country with the second largest or third largest nuclear arsenal? That question does not make sense, you have to accept the corollary that only countries with nuclear weapons can pose a threat to countries with nuclear weapons.

If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism. — ssu

I accept that Russia may have had the right to attack Ukraine and US to invade Iraq based on the facts which I will never have access to, I will never have access to CIA or KGB high level information.

So what are these reasons a country invades another?

1. To preserve national security
2. To fulfill imperialist desires of the nation as a whole
3. To fulfill the wishes of its general populace

OR

3a. The wishes of the powerful ruling elites or military industrial complex

4. To fulfill the wishes of the president of that country.

Only (3) is somewhat testable. I remain agnostic in each case, Ukraine and Iraq, about the other factors that led to the invasion. My point is that, anyone in that position of highest authority in each nation will know what the reasons are, even if they do no admit it themselves, and only they can say for sure what is in their minds, in which case we can make judgement.

If we were able to medically examine Putin and find out if he is mad or delusional, that is welcome, however if we find he is not, there is a problem, because it means his acts are rational. Does it mean he is evil? Again, if you admit every imperialist including the British Empire or Alexander the Killer of Men, or Cortez the killer is evil, then I will agree with you. That is classic imperialism. Oh and don't forget American imperialism.

Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!

To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous. — ssu

Again we are discussing rationality. After fighting for so many years, despite peace agreements, Russia or Putin sees the only way to end the war as invading and controlling Ukraine in some way. If it stops the war in the east, then that is a rational goal. He was fighting a proxy war. Rationality and morality are, on the first analysis, separate.

What is stupid is to go so far and then withdraw from Ukraine, that is not a sensible option, if fact, that would establish the madness of Vladimir Putin for me more than anything else.

Never join NATO? My test is this, any rational person would realize that NATO has no intention of a never joining - that option must be open. If Zelenski promises never to join NATO what is to say that at a later date someone installs a puppet government in Ukraine and gets them to apply for NATO membership then what? Can Zelenski promise that he will never have nuclear weapons? Can he promise for future generations, especially now, the rational thing would be to start a clandestine nuclear program and make sure Russia knows about it. I am sure the NATO would be willing. I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment, I feel sorry for him.

Assuming I know my own mind, I know that thinking (a) and (b) is not a result of my stupidity and certainly I do not take my facts from Vladimir Putin, but from all other sources to make my own picture of reality. So I have to disagree with the charge of stupidity.

Halting NATO expansion is not limited to Ukraine, however keeping NATO out of Ukraine or keeping Ukraine nuclear free (why is that suddenly a bad thing?) is a stated goal, and this has to do with future threats. Russian and Ukraine have been at war, so it follows that one poses a threat to the other.

Is there anyone out there whom is accepted all round as giving an objective analysis of the situation? Or is there none, in which case it is just us.

It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away. — Bitter Crank

How correct you are. And of course, the ugly parts in 9/11 like the people leaping to their death from the twin towers, or in war coverage of dead children or that insides of humans spilled out look quite like the stuff on display at your supermarket's meat counter is usually censored starting by the photographers themselves. If news or a media outlet shows truly shocking footage, they do have an agenda. Even if reporting atrocities is something good journalism ought to do.

The fact is that until now, the countries that had wars in recent history have had a language barrier between us and they haven't been so connected to the social media. With Ukraine, it's different. And when it comes to the information war, basically is focused on desperately hiding what is happening in Ukraine behind quite Soviet-style discourse. Likely it won't work, especially if the "special military operation" drags out to months or years.

it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? — FreeEmotion

After the Osirak raid in 1981 I think Israel was complacent and people didn't notice that Iraq continued the research. Another example is how far the Syrians got with their nuclear program and Israel only by chance got information about it and destroyed it (without talking much about it).

Iran has balanced a fine line with their nuclear weapons. They have smartly understood that it's all about posturing and deterrence with nuclear weapons, not use. Hence to have even the ability to make nukes gives them deterrence and still they could agree with Obama and the West. Going full "North Korea" will likely just make the Saudis get their own nuclear weapons. Now in this situation, Saudis aren't opting for it.

Of course everything here is about Israel's neighbors (and historical enemies) trying to have a counterbalance to Israel's nuclear deterrent. As you can see from history, Israel can make strikes anywhere because no other country in the area has nuclear weapons.

. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. — FreeEmotion

How? You see, Russia has the Kaliningrad enclave surrounded by NATO countries, that doesn't have a landbridge (the famous Suwalki corridor) to Belarus or mainland Russia.And Russia has already built a bridge to Crimea. And Russia would have had a multitude of ways to keep a) Ukraine out of NATO and b) the European NATO countries disarming themselves. Starting annexing territories made the totally different response, which you seem not to get!

Here's Putin driving a Kamaz truck on that Bridge into Crimea:

Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. — FreeEmotion

And where then do you yourself draw the line where countries "pose a threat" to Russia and are the ones where Russia is justified to use military force. I guess that means also that my country and @Christoffer's country pose a threat to Russia and for you, it's justifiable that Russia will attack us too, because of "the threat" we impose to Russia. Because that will be the next phase of this conflict. It's already well under way.

Or perhaps then Moldova? Oh, the huge threat Moldova possibly joining NATO makes to Russia. And why not include NATO members like the Baltic States? Would you agree to have WW3 if Russia goes for that landbridge to Kaliningrad through Lithuania? Above all, Russia has already demanded NATO forces to withdraw from all Eastern member countries and that the US and Western members cannot hold any exercises in Poland, Romania, the Baltic States etc. That is their demand. So that's were the appeasement policy and "understanding Russia's legitimate security needs" will go in the end.

Perhaps you just should demolish NATO, because Russia feels threatened about it.

I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment — FreeEmotion

Zelenskyi is trying to stay alive and lead his country against Russian invasion. Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO...

Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO... — ssu

Is that Finnish "logic", again? :smile:

If Ukraine isn't in NATO, it doesn't follow that Zelensky isn't doing the bidding of his NATO masters.

Leading NATO members are funding, arming, training his people, and providing them with intelligence and propaganda support. I doubt very much they would do that if Zelensky wasn't acting in their interests .....

From all the media and rhetoric that has spilled out, it appears that the NATO wants to diminish Russia if not destroy it, or reduce its international influence to that or Romania or Botswana (just two countries that come to mind) — FreeEmotion

Correct. I for one am pretty sure that America and its British Poodle are planning a war against Russia, first by arming Ukraine and neighbouring NATO countries and then manufacturing a pretext to intervene.

I think what is happening in Ukraine is very similar to WW1. Britain had sought to contain Germany for years while it was itself constantly expanding. When Germany invaded Belgium, Britain claimed that this violated Belgian neutrality, declared war on Germany, and fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium in order to turn America against Germany.

This time round the idea was to contain Russia whilst NATO and the EU were constantly expanding. Instead of giving Russia some form of guarantee that there would be no further expansion into its sphere of influence, the West decided to escalate by meddling in Russia’s neighboring countries and backing or instigating the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003) and the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine (2004).

Incidentally, Zelensky was a TV comedian. How did he manage to get elected president? Was it through massive media coverage in his favor?

Some points raised by his critics include:

1. He has sought to centralize authority and strengthen his personal position

2. His chief aide and head of the Ukrainian Security Service Ivan Bakanov operated a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.

3. He had his own expansionist plans. In January 2020 he said "Romania occupied Northern Bukovina", etc.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy - Wikipedia

The major benefit of reading is getting information, — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, who needs reading when they can watch and listen to stuff in the media? And even the literate can be brainwashed by the media.

At any rate, I think Zelensky's case is a perfect illustration of media influence on the masses. This guy was a TV comedian, he became the star of the television series "Servant of the People" in which he played the role of president of Ukraine, then he created a political party of the same name with people from the same company that had created the series, ran for president with massive media backing, and was elected president .... :grin:

LMAO.

(I'm only posting this so you can repeat what you have already repeated ad nauseam)

LMAO. — hairy belly

Great argument, I'm impressed. Someone arguing their point on a philosophy forum, engaging with rebuttals and other points of view ... is somehow unusual.

The whole point of an open forum like this is that people can't be shut down for arguing their point of view in good faith.

If I was just repeating the same thing, not responding to new points (which, in philosophy, are sometimes subtle and nuanced), ask the mods to ban me.

Putin says these things. Those are the reasons given to this war. That is the Stalinist narrative. What do you think the de-nazification of Ukraine is about? — ssu

Yes, exactly, seen as their the stated reasons for the war, it's relevant to discuss certainly in the context that that's what Putin says is the justification.

I totally agree that Putin and Russia will exaggerate whatever neo-Nazi presence is in Ukraine. We're not in disagreement that, whatever the truth, it's also propaganda.

However, it seems to me undeniable that there are neo-Nazi organizations in Ukraine / "ultra nationalists" that seems to, at least, sympathize with them.

It's also undeniable that the EU has put zero pressure on Ukraine, even symbolically, to curb this movement.

The main point is that this is a ridiculous war. It genuinely doesn't have credible argumentation. The Putin that annexed Crimea was totally different: thought about actual Russians and Russian speaking minorities, gained total strategic surprise and used well all his information warfare abilities. This is the propaganda of Stalin. — ssu

The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), destroy the existing Ukraine military capability, secure a treaty guarantee of not joining Nato in a negotiated peace (and, anyways, after such a mess I don't think Nato will be considering that anyways), and, yeah, sure, why not take those gas deposits on the coast, are all perfectly rational strategic objectives that Russia is likely to achieve.

The downside of the war is cutting collaboration with the EU (Russia's largest trading partner), but since EU will continue to by Russia gas anyways ... the "big loss" of cutting economic ties has not and is unlikely to happen.

No EU "credible negotiation" would have done anything. If one thinks so, one is just fooling oneself and basically going and trusting a liar, who said that Russia wouldn't attack. I guess this and the idea that "all this wouldn't have happened if no NATO enlargement" are just those arguments for those who only see to criticize the West as something valid (as they don't care so much about Putin or Russia). — ssu

You misunderstand what a credible negotiation is. I do not mean that a credible negotiation would have for sure avoided the war nor is a credible negotiation just giving the counter party everything they want.

However, in a credible negotiation, if it fails, and you want to accuse the other side of bad faith and refusing all reasonable offers ... well you need to be able to produce a paper that represents your reasonable offer the counter party refused. If you can't, it's just speculation.

Likewise, in almost any negotiation (in particular between organizations) there are lot's of issues, and each side always has legitimate grievances. The "Azov" brigade that even Western governments admit is a neo-Nazi-ish and naming things after Nazi collaborator war heroes and carrying out suppression of the Russian language and, yes, Russia's own security concerns that ... if not assuaged ... they'll invade Ukraine and lots of blood will be spilled ... as they have just done, are all legitimate grievances.

Now, obviously there's also legitimate grievances on Ukraine side and EU side etc.

A credible negotiation tries to parse all those grievances as well as add positive reasons for a resolution.

EU has more-or-less just ignored the issue, repeats "Putin is bad", paid lip service to "Ukrainian sovereignty".

That's not a credible negotiation process.

Now, if there was some indication of making credible offers and responding to credible grievances (such, yes, indeed, these neo-Nazi elements we don't like either, and their having their own paramilitary organizations we don't see as a good thing either, and, because we're also against it, we'll put some pressure on Ukraine and at least denounce it; that we support Ukraine independence ... but not neo-Nazi, however many they be) ... and Russia still invaded.

Ok, yes, was the plan all along and diplomacy was bad faith on the Russian's part.

However, without a credible good faith process on the EU side, it's simply not possible to then just accuse the other party of bad faith.

It's also completely stupid if Russia just invades anyways and the EU does nothing meaningful about that (send troops for instance, which would not trigger article 5 insofar as the fighting is over Ukraine and not attacking a NATO nation per se--of course, no nation in Europe wants to).

True, Ukraine has a "right" to join NATO and sign the treatise it wants ... problem is NATO wasn't actually making an invitation with anything on the table to sign.

Ukraine also has a "right" to sign a treaty with Russia (committing to not join NATO for example), it can do so now, and it could have done so years ago too.

Now, if Ukraine signed and Russia still invaded; ok, same exact result, nothing was "lost" because Ukraine couldn't have joined NATO anyways (... otherwise it would be in NATO now), but then the sell to the Russian people and how non-Western Nations view it would be very different. Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. It makes it difficult to make agreements with anyone in the future.

To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous. — ssu

But even this assumption is dangerous because stopping NATO expansion is not a justification for a military takeover of another country.

Also, the idea that NATO is an existential threat is itself telling. What precisely is it threatening? Is losing trade partners really a cause for a military action? That itself is a flawed premise, no?

A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO. — Benkei

Obviously countries want to join NATO, and NATO could have let Ukraine in if it wanted to.

However, for nations already in NATO (basically all of Europe) there's not necessarily any benefit to letting new countries in (it would have been great for Ukraine, no questions about that ... but could also trigger world war III and nuclear exchange, which isn't necessarily a good risk to take for the sake of Ukrainians ... and NATO has chosen not to; big surprise).

And, of course, NATO countries can say all they want that other nations have "a right" to join ... but if the offer's not actually on the table, that sort of talk doesn't actually get you any NATO protections.

It's like me telling you again and again you have "a right" to work at this company ... but, also, I'm not offering you a job ... but you definitely have a right to the job, if it was offered, but it isn't so ... basically NATO discourse on Ukraine.

The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with. — Benkei

It's a huge relative gain for the US by reducing the relevance of soft power generally speaking.

It's Europe that has a legitimate moral basis, and the largest economy, to lead the world with soft power.

US doesn't want to see that happening, but wants leadership of the West to be hard power centered (aka. new cold war) ... which, seems, now it is.

In one media cycle the disasters of Iraq and abandoning allies in Afghanistan are totally forgotten, all Western nations must kiss the ring of the top "don" of NATO and build a new Iron curtain with the "evil" red army.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement, but please point out any nuances or differences.

Same response as above..losing a potential trade partner is not a cause for military action (takeover of another country!). Misplaced blame.

I'm not saying it's a cause for military action, I'm saying the EU refusing good faith collaboration with Russia lowers the downsides of military action.

The basic logic is: Well, if EU isn't offering us anything, and forcing us to reorient our entire economy both inwards (to be immune to sanctions threats) and towards China (to be immune to sanctions threats) and offload our USD and build up gold reserves ... may as well take Ukraine.

Now, if it was "the plan all along", then the "sanction proofing" of Russia would have happened before, and not after, sanctions were first imposed.

If there were no sanctions, Russia would not have sanctioned proof (no way to justify it to their population they can't use Western brands) and therefore the cost of the Ukrainian war would have been significantly higher (cause real economic dislocations, instead of manageable nuisance ).

Of course, there's still an impact, and could tip the Russian population over the edge, just not as much as in 2014 when Russia had far greater economic dependencies ... maybe because it wasn't in some insane scheme to basically cut all ties with Europe and invade Ukraine before 2014 for zero justifiable reason.

The whole process just underlines the opinion of nearly every expert on the issue that sanctions do not work as a deterrent and decrease rather than increase chances for peace.

The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), — boethius

When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism.

And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? (Which some here on purpose forget in their illogical reasoning)

True, Ukraine has a "right" to join NATO and sign the treatise it wants ... problem is NATO wasn't actually making an invitation with anything on the table to sign. — boethius

Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue.

Ukraine also has a "right" to sign a treaty with Russia (committing to not join NATO for example), it can do so now, and it could have done so years ago too. — boethius

And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore.

Logical fact is that Russia would be a dominant European player if 1) it wouldn't be hostile to it's neighbors and have imperialist aspirations and 2) had understood that it has to get it's economy competitive and better and that it's best resource is an well educated population.

Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. — boethius

And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category.

It's also undeniable that the EU has put zero pressure on Ukraine, even symbolically, to curb this movement. — boethius

Correct. And that's because the movement is anti-Russian.

As for its ultra-nationalist character, Wikipedia says:

Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), often known as Azov Detachment or Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) is a right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine.

In 2014, the regiment gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. In 2014, a spokesman for the regiment said around 10–20% of the unit were neo-Nazis. In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the United States Congress blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology

Wikipedia calls it "right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi". Wikipedia is a mainstream Western source, NOT Russian propaganda. The propaganda is entirely of @ssu's making.

When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism. — ssu

For sure. This is definitely classic imperialism.

And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? — ssu

Totally understand it. The problem is if NATO doesn't let you in the club, maybe take that into consideration in dealing with your largest neighbor that can flatten your cities.

Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue. — ssu

I'm not saying NATO is the real culprit, I explained at some length that I do not view criticism of authoritarianism as constructive. I'd much rather see Russia a vibrant democracy. However, criticism of Russia doesn't serve much of an analytical purpose.

Also, I actually appreciate Russia not nuking the planet ... so far. I honestly believe that's worth at least some good faith offers of economic collaboration in return and having a more nuanced public discourse than "Putin is basically the Satan" ... I think Satan would have nuked the planet.

At some point, political realism is required. If you're not going to let Ukraine into Nato, the actual credible diplomacy is a better course of action than just shit talking Putin.

And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore. — ssu

It is possible that this was Russia's "plan all along", the problem is, without a credible negotiation process, you can't demonstrate that, as no reasonable offers and no reasonable response to legitimate grievances are ever made in which to prove the counter party's bad faith.

The offer: "Do not insist Ukraine doesn't join NATO ... which we are not going to let Ukraine join by the way, but we'll leave them hanging high and dry if you invade" is not credible diplomacy.

And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category. — ssu

They obviously have arguments about that. Things change, if you can argue the other side broke the agreement (didn't deliver the product) then you can justify not following the agreement too (not paying for what wasn't delivered); of course, one's arguments need to be credible.

The "good faith / bad faith" game is one of proving one is more good faith than the other, as no one's perfect.

If there was some new agreement, clear commitment by Russia to not invade in exchange for Ukraine committing not to join Nato and remaining neutral, and then Russia invades anyways without any further changes in the status quo, that's then clear bad faith.

NATO promised not to move east, which Russia tolerated right up to it's border (on small areas), a good faith move to tolerate that and not just invade everyone; from Russia's point of view, that good faith must be answered with good faith (such as committing not to expand all the way to large borders ... and also be one shell away on thousands of KM of border, from nuclear escalation). That's how negotiation works.

The basic logic is: Well, if EU isn't offering us anything, and forcing us to reorient our entire economy both inwards (to be immune to sanctions threats) and towards China (to be immune to sanctions threats) and offload our USD and build up gold reserves ... may as well take Ukraine. — boethius

But this is just reiterating my point. Losing a trade partner should not be a legitimate reason to then takeover that country.