But even this assumption is dangerous because stopping NATO expansion is not a justification for a military takeover of another country. — schopenhauer1

Oh that doesn't matter...according to some here. As I've said the legitimate reasons to use military force is when you are attacked. That you attack some other country for hypothetical, possible attacks isn't legitimate. And when the neighbor has no intention to attack, no ability to pose a threat to you, then whose cause the war is should be obvious.

Right? But this is just reiterating m point. Losing a trade partner should not be a legitimate reason to then takeover that country. — schopenhauer1

I've never said it was ... nor is anyone. Putin's stated reason is "de-Nazification".

What I'm pointing out is that, in a political realist point of view, the EU removing itself as a good faith trading partner of Russia and instead just parroting US talking points that "Putin be bad boy", removes the downside to attacking Ukraine.

Resulting in only upsides and no downsides.

Any rational strategist will do a move that has minimal downsides and plenty of upsides without hesitation.

Western media is saying this is miscalculation because they don't like Putin "even more" now ... but were they doing him any favours before?

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

Indeed, and did Europe benefit from directly and indirectly supporting violent anti-Russian extremists?

Now, possible, war would have happened anyways, but with some actual track record of opposing these neo-Nazi's, this entire conversation wouldn't be happening and the EU could credibly say there are other policies available to reduce neo-Nazi influence and full scale invasion is unwarranted.

Oh that doesn't matter...according to some here. As I've said the legitimate reasons to use military force is when you are attacked. That you attack some other country for hypothetical, possible attacks isn't legitimate. And when the neighbor has no intention to attack, no ability to pose a threat to you, then whose cause the war is should be obvious. — ssu

Ok, we are on the same page.

I've never said it was ... nor is anyone. Putin's stated reason is "de-Nazification". — boethius

Yes, stated reason...along with a rambling manifesto about how Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union and isn't stupid how that was lost when the USSR disbanded.

What I'm pointing out is that, in a political realist point of view, the EU removing itself as a good faith trading partner of Russia and instead just parroting US talking points that "Putin be bad boy", removes the downside to attacking Ukraine.

Resulting in only upsides and no downsides.

Any rational strategist will do a move that has minimal downsides and plenty of upsides without hesitation.

Western media is saying this is miscalculation because they don't like Putin "even more" now ... but were they doing him any favours before? — boethius

I just don't get your position here.. I guess my question to you is do you agree with Putin's use of force to takeover a country?

I'm not asking for the perspective of Putin himself. Clearly he thinks he should.

Yes, stated reason...along with a rambling manifesto about how Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union and isn't stupid how that was lost when the USSR disbanded. — schopenhauer1

Yes, obviously discussing the stated reason for something is relevant. You can argue is purely propaganda if you want, but it's obviously relevant to the situation.

I just don't get your position here.. I guess my question to you is do you agree with Putin's use of force to takeover a country? — schopenhauer1

I'm presenting the counter argument to the Western media narrative, understand the counter-party perspective, which is the basis of negotiation; which I think is preferable to more bloodshed.

As I said, war seems entirely justifiable if the neo-Nazi element is above some critical threshold. It is definitely, from my point of view, uncomfortable amount of neo-Nazi elements to easily argue against his justification. So, that doesn't make me happy, nor the EU doing absolutely nothing about it.

Considering the West had 8 years to do something about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, I think the burden of proof is on those Western actors to demonstrate how they are fringe or marginal in Ukraine's de facto governing processes.

For example, the neo-Nazi association with Trump I would agree is totally fringe thing and not a justification to assassinate Trump, and the whole "Trump is a neo-nazi or supporting neo-Nazi's" I viewed as irresponsible and propaganda (although, I certainly didn't nor do support Trump; just, Republican's aren't significantly composed of neo-Nazis).

However, there does legitimately seem a lot more in Ukraine.

And, therefore, not invading can be argued to be the appeasement.

I'm presenting the counter argument to the Western media narrative, understand the counter-party perspective, which is the basis of negotiation; which I think is preferable to more bloodshed. — boethius

So, that wasn't my question. Do YOU agree with Putin's use of force to takeover another country?

As I said, war seems entirely justifiable if the neo-Nazi element is above some critical threshold. It is definitely, from my point of view, uncomfortable amount of neo-Nazi elements to easily argue against his justification. So, that doesn't make me happy, nor the EU doing absolutely nothing about it.

Considering the West had 8 years to do something about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, I think the burden of proof is on those Western actors to demonstrate how they are fringe or marginal in Ukraine's de facto governing processes.

For example, the neo-Nazi association with Trump I would agree is totally fringe thing and not a justification to assassinate Trump, and the whole "Trump is a neo-nazi or supporting neo-Nazi's" I viewed as irresponsible and propaganda (although, I certainly didn't nor do support Trump; just, Republican's aren't significantly composed of neo-Nazis). — boethius

This seems dangerous. So in this view, Canada should takeover the US because there are known neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists? Or the other way around if that was known? This is just slippery slope justification.

However, there does legitimately seem a lot more in Ukraine.

And, therefore, not invading can be argued to be the appeasement. — boethius

Just the presence of neo-Nazis.. that is your basis for invading a country? Also, if there were neo-Nazis found in Russia should Ukraine or anyone else invade Russia?

Seems to me that a justification to get rid of a hate group that is potentially violent doesn't give one the green light to kill 10,000s regular citizens or more people in getting "rid" of these groups...Especially when the average citizen certainly doesn't want them there at all, let alone destroying their homes and killing citizens.

Russia is taking over another country in a brutal military fashion and will occupy it, killing many people. How is that ever justified for anything less than an actual immanent or actual military action against your own country or there was some gross violation of human rights, if that.

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 — ssu

Any rational being will draw the line when the advantages overweight the disadvantages. If they are wrong, that is, without full knowledge of the past or present, or are sticking to an outdated version of colonialism, then that is being irrational, but as the spokesperson for NATO said, we don't know what is in his head.

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. — ssu

Russia has the right to make any demands they see fit. That's sovereignty. There is a difference between appeasement: NATO -1, Russia +1 and peaceful status quo: NATO 0, Russia 0. This game seems to me at getting NATO + 1 , Russia 0. I have no interest in who wins, except that they do not start wars and put the rest of the world into turmoil.

Do you want a diminished Russia? If then say so. I do not want any country to be diminished.

ran for president with massive media backing, and was elected president .... :grin: — Apollodorus

Was that democracy? I do not have the information to say one way or another. Was it a coup?
Can anyone explain his statements lately, attacking NATO (verbally, of course) for not doing more. Why was he having unrealistic explanations?

That you attack some other country for hypothetical, possible attacks isn't legitimate. And when the neighbor has no intention to attack, no ability to pose a threat to you, then whose cause the war is should be obvious. — ssu

Curious how you view the nuclear first strike strategy. A possible attack, an ability to pose the threat, and intelligence reports that the other country is having an 'intention to attack' of course no one know intentions, just some missiles placed in Cuba pointing at the American heartland.

Now, possible, war would have happened anyways, but with some actual track record of opposing these neo-Nazi's, this entire conversation wouldn't be happening and the EU could credibly say there are other policies available to reduce neo-Nazi influence and full scale invasion is unwarranted. — boethius

Correct. I think the most important thing is to debunk the idea that "Ukranian neo-Nazis" are "Russian propaganda" when this is a well-known fact accepted by mainstream sources like Wikipedia, and when even the US Congress called them "white supremacists".

Other false claims, like that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, or that NATO isn't controlled by America, have already been refuted here. Unfortunately, the pro-NATO camp keeps churning out false allegations in the hope that they can hoodwink people with their anti-Russian propaganda.

This is why it is essential to be alert and vigilant at all times and see through their not-so-clever maneuvers and machinations. :smile:

Was that democracy? I do not have the information to say one way or another. Was it a coup? Can anyone explain his statements lately, attacking NATO (verbally, of course) for not doing more. Why was he having unrealistic explanations? — FreeEmotion

To be honest, I haven't had the time to look into all the details of his case, but something definitely isn't right there. When foreign money and the media are involved you know that something stinks ....

1. Zelensky started off as a TV comedian.

2. He became the star of the television series "Servant of the People" in which he played the role of president of Ukraine, thus getting the masses used to the idea of him as president.

3. Then he created a political party called "Servant of the People" with operatives from the same company that had created the series.

4. Then he ran for president with massive media backing, and - surprise, surprise - the masses who had been conditioned to see him as president, elected him president!

Additionally, people close to him especially the head of Ukrainian Security owned off-shore companies in dodgy places where people go to evade taxes and hide their activities. And we know that foreign interests were involved in Ukraine's anti-Russian "Orange Revolution" of 2004.

Moreover, Zelensky was a TV actor and it’s an established fact that actors and politicians can’t be trusted when it comes to telling the truth. But is Zelensky delusional or a compulsive liar?

Apparently, in a televised speech, Zelensky has announced that "the end of the world has arrived" and that “if we are no more, then, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia will be next”.

I for one have seen no indication whatsoever that Russia intends to invade any of the Baltic countries, have you?

Zelensky made other curious claims including that the Russian forces carry “mobile cremation chambers” for disposing of their own dead!

Allegedly, Zelensky also has “survived three assassination attempts” (!) against him by Kremlin-backed Russian (Wagner Group) and Chechen special forces, that were “thwarted by anti-war elements within Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB)” who tipped off the Ukrainians ....

Unfortunately, Zelensky has omitted to provide any evidence to back up his claims. I fully understand that he may be in a precarious situation, but why keep making evidence-free allegations?

Also, Ukraine is being funded, armed, and supplied with real-time intelligence on Russia's moves by the US. Why is America so keen on pushing Russia out of Ukraine? At the end of the day, Ukraine had been part of the USSR since 1922 and it wasn't a problem. Why is it a problem now? How is Russian presence in Ukraine threatening Washington or New York? Or London for that matter?

Indeed, we are seeing the consolidation of authoritarianism and the retreat and retrenchment of "Western values" ... not some sort of pyrrhic victory for those values.

For example, what did the West do for the rest of the world, in particularly economically, during the pandemic? Basically nada, and it's a fools errand to expect loyalty and honour in return for none. — boethius

Belarus's handling of the pandemic was disastrous, but that had nothing to do with what the West did or didn't do. Lukashenko's "solution" for the problem was to deny it.

The events of the past two years to which I was referring were the violent crackdown on the opposition and the hijacking of a Ryanair plane, which led to an irreparable break with the West. The sanctions and ostracism that followed were like a rehearsal of what's happening now.

As I said, war seems entirely justifiable if the neo-Nazi element is above some critical threshold. It is definitely, from my point of view, uncomfortable amount of neo-Nazi elements to easily argue against his justification. So, that doesn't make me happy, nor the EU doing absolutely nothing about it. — boethius

Ukrainian "neo-Nazi elements" are not much different from European far-right parties and movements, and they arguably have less power and influence there. Yes, they are nasty, but I don't know what you think the EU could and should have been doing about them.

“Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations.” — One World News

Well, imagine Putin feeling insecure about other neighbors, and going for his "Crimean solution". :/

The reality on the ground is the predicament the Ukrainian people now find themselves in. Invasion, bombing, shooting, fires, destruction, disruptions of getting on with life (getting their kids to school), ... (while armchair commenters play blame-games). What does it mean for them? It's not like they've been launching military campaigns into Russia, or threatened with that intent.

I'm kind of thinking that, if some of Russia's neighbors look elsewhere, making Putin feel sort of claustrophobic, then there might be reasons for that. Them looking elsewhere doesn't justify Russia taking them over, doesn't justify Russian expansion by :fire:.

What nation (in their right mind) would invade Russia, would launch a war to take over Moscow? For one, that'd be rather costly. :fire:

With Putin's plan to enroll Ukraine in Russia, maybe, say, Slovakia and Hungary, become uncomfortable with the "new" nuclear neighbor. Would that then justify launching a counter-invasion into Russia?

It's all hot air, distracting from the predicament of the Ukrainian people.

God be with the people of Ukraine and Russia. — FreeEmotion

America prays for God to destroy our enemies. Our enemies pray for God to destroy us. Somebody is going to be disappointed. Somebody is wasting their fucking time. Could it be everyone? — Carlin (2008)

Great visuals — FreeEmotion

This one might not be as interesting/relevant, but, anyway, according to "Mapped: Corruption in Countries Around the World" (Feb 11, 2022), measuring a corruption perception index:

2012-2021:

Ukraine: +6 → 32
Russia: +1 → 29

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. — boethius

I think that the rules when you can get in are NATO written in the articles of NATO and evident from the application process. If NATO doesn't want a small country inside, then what kind of a threat is that country to Russia? But this is not solely about "security". It's about being a "Great Power".

Just to quote again the obvious:

Vladimir Putin, however, has explicitly stated that he views Ukraine as part of Russia. He was determined to reclaim this allegedly lost Russian territory regardless of whether, say, Poland joined NATO. NATO expansion was always a convenient pretext, but never the reason, for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine.

But I guess we are in agreement on this, or in somewhat of an agreement.

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. — boethius

Nobody else broke the agreement. In fact, there is no credibility in that you first accept the territorial sovereignty of the states (meaning that you really don't have any issues where the border is drawn) and then you annex parts of it and basically start to talk abou Novorossiya and the Ukraine as a country being "artificial", if it's not part of Russia. With those kind of changes, you lose all credibility.

End result? Putin just have created self-fulfilling prophecies as his actions have resulted what he made earlier accusations about. Hence can be smug about it as they become true.

Yesterday Vladimir Putin said the following:

“There are no bad intentions towards our neighbors. And I would also advise them not to escalate the situation, not to introduce any restrictions. We fulfill all our obligations and will continue to fulfill them,” Putin said in televised remarks, according to Reuters.

“We do not see any need here to aggravate or worsen our relations. And all our actions, if they arise, they always arise exclusively in response to some unfriendly actions, actions against the Russian Federation,” he added.

Hence the next likely "NATO agent-provocateurs", who by their (and their countries actions) will "aggravate and worsen" the relations and will escalate the situation on Russia's Western border after Zelenskyi are these two women:

(They both speak English, not Finnish or Swedish...as the message isn't just for their people)


The process has begun and the war in Ukraine will continue to a conclusion that we yet don't know.

Do you want a diminished Russia? If then say so. I do not want any country to be diminished. — FreeEmotion

Russia is a big country, so why would I want it to be diminished? So no. The Russians are genuinely nice, warm people and have a soul more of an artist than an engineer, those that I have been with. They are Europeans and I genuinely think (call me naive, I don't care) that the Russians could well have a democracy, but they haven't been given a real chance. That's the real tragedy, that people loyal to the former authoritarian regime of the Soviet Union captured and retained power in Russia.

Actually, I would really, really like to have a stable, prosperous Russia as a neighbor who feels safe and understands that it has an important position in the World. It can have it's huge military and it's nuclear weapons, if it only would be as peaceful as Switzerland: a small country that has never attacked anybody, but who has surrendered only when faced with Napoleon and who nobody dared ti attack either in WW1 or WW2. If only Russia's leaders would understand that power is the capability of their people, not in the size of the territory. And if you want to be rich, then have trade with other countries. Let those nukes be the Alps for Russia creating an impenetrable fortress if they want to feel secure. Nobody isn't after them and they can easily contain the foreign bankers and businessmen. Yet the idea that everybody is against them creates the perfect pretext for imperialism and a justification for the authoritarianism.

Here is a chart from VISUAL CAPITALIST showing what Ukraine imports or exports, and from/to whom.

Ukraine’s Shift Away from Russian Trade Dependence
Since its independence from the former USSR in 1991, Ukraine has steadily shifted towards Western trading partners, especially as conflicts with Russia escalated in the 2010s.

After years of negotiations, Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU in 2014 facilitated free trade between EU nations and Ukraine, reducing the country’s dependence on trade with Russia.

Ukraine is one of the most important economic centers of the former Soviet Union, and it had long been the breadbasket of the USSR thanks to its fertile chernozem soil and strong agricultural industry.

Trade value between Russia and Ukraine peaked in 2011 at $49.2 billion, and since then has fallen by 85% to $7.2 billion in 2020. During this time, European nations like Poland and Germany overtook Russia in terms of trade value with Ukraine, and in 2021 trade with the EU totaled to more than $58 billion.

Curious how you view the nuclear first strike strategy. A possible attack, an ability to pose the threat, and intelligence reports that the other country is having an 'intention to attack' of course no one know intentions, just some missiles placed in Cuba pointing at the American heartland. — FreeEmotion

Nuclear weapons are for posturing, not for use. Just look at how scared people are of any kind of nuclear accident: the accident in Fukushima didn't kill anybody, but had huge implications everywhere. Now just think what using a small tactical nuclear warhead (50kt or less) would create. You think that people wouldn't care if in the social media feed or in the television they had headlines like "NUCLEAR WAR!".

That's why nuclear first strike strategy is dangerous. You can say about it at peacetime whatever you want, that is just posturing, but actual first use is different. As I've said, the most worrisome possibility is the idea of "Escalation to De-escalation": to use tactical nuclear weapons in order to get an armistice. To show that you really mean it this time and now it's time to call it quits. After all, if you bow down at the possibility of nuclear annihilation, is that so bad, really? That's were the danger lies. Because once that "shock-and-awe" goes away, what do you do when the other one responds with a similar strike?

Security policy trumps trade policy always. If you think that there's such an important trade relationship that it would deter war, there isn't. Just look at WW1.

One way things could escalate is cyber attacks on infrastructure.

I think that actually would tilt the world into a depression. Plus we'd get to see whose country deals best with a shortage of basic needs.

ROFL.

Your response to my original post had nothing to do with my post. Your second response was again just you soloing. Then I explained Putin's ties to the European neo-Nazis and far-right, since you said you were not aware of it. You ignored that in your response and went soloing again on issues I didn't touch on. I don't need you to teach me about Putin's perspective and West's hypocrisy/shortcomings, I'm well aware of them. Probably more than you are.

why keep making evidence-free allegations? — Apollodorus

Why not? Zelensky is a bit busy right row, and doing extremely well in his communication, thank you. You might have to wait for the evidence, I guess.

Ah, I wasn't thinking that trade relationships would or did trump security policy. I posted the chart just to give people like me a clearer idea of the Ukranian economy.

US works with Poland to provide Ukraine with fighter jets: https://www.ft.com/content/2f1f0944-ceab-4042-93bd-63c2d863a75f

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!?

Ah, I wasn't thinking that trade relationships would or did trump security policy. I posted the chart just to give people like me a clearer idea of the Ukranian economy. — Bitter Crank

Compare that to Russia's major trading partners, here from 2020. With the sanctions, it's evident that China will have a huge role in Russia. And that Russia is in trouble. Besides China, major trading partners (that are loyal allies) are only Belarus and Kazakhstan.

1. China: US$49.1 billion (14.6% of Russia’s total exports)
2. Netherlands: $24.8 billion (7.4%)
3. United Kingdom: $23.2 billion (6.9%)
4. Germany: $18.6 billion (5.5%)
5. Belarus: $16 billion (4.7%)
6. Turkey: $15.9 billion (4.7%)
7. Kazakhstan: $14.1 billion (4.2%)
8. South Korea: $12.5 billion (3.7%)
9. United States: $11 billion (3.3%)
10. Italy: $10.1 billion (3%)
11. Poland: $9.6 billion (2.8%)
12. Japan: $9.1 billion (2.7%)
13. Finland: $7.1 billion (2.1%)
14. Ukraine: $6.3 billion (1.9%)
15. India: $5.8 billion (1.7%)
16. Belgium: $5.7 billion (1.7%)
17. France: $4.8 billion (1.4%)
18. Uzbekistan: $4.7 billion (1.4%)
19. Egypt: $4 billion (1.2%)
20. Latvia: $3.2 billion (1%)

The fact is that this has been a catastrophy for Putin. He might get some kind of result in this war which he can declare a victory, but that will be a Pyrrhic victory. And truly, wtf he will do then with the Donbass? Because occupying Ukraine will drain the living daylights out of the Russian economy. Russia will be weak and will play the second fiddle towards China. You can see here that the Russians living here are in total shock of the events happening in their country. Nothing like that happened in 2014 or during the Russo-Georgian war. This is totally different.

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!? — Manuel

So it seems. As I said from the start, Western oil and defense companies are going to make a huge fortune from this:

Investors are betting the threat of a new cold war will trigger an arms race. Britain’s BAE Systems, as well as US aircraft maker Lockheed Martin, weapon manufacturer Northropp Grumman and engines-to-missiles conglomerate Raytheon, hit record share prices in the wake of the invasion.

British arms makers tool up for Putin’s new Cold War – The Telegraph

Incidentally, note how they call it "Putin's Cold War". But, of course, to have a cold war, or any war, you need two sides, not one. And now we know which side is making the big profits .... :grin:

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!? — Manuel

Yes. It's the only way to give Putin what they think he deserves. War against Russia, whether clandestine or overt, appears to be inevitable.

Because occupying Ukraine will drain the living daylights out of the Russian economy. Russia will be weak and will play the second fiddle towards China. You can see here that the Russians living here are in total shock of the events happening in their country. Nothing like that happened in 2014 or during the Russo-Georgian war. This is totally different. — ssu

https://www.consultancy.eu/news/7433/research-ukraine-war-costs-russian-military-20-billion-per-day

€20 billion a day means that it has so far has cost Russia €220 billion.

Add to that all sanctions and the worthless Rubel and it's just a matter of time before Putin starts to take money from the oligarchs to try and finish this mess. There's no way Putin can win any of this. Imagine if this war goes on for another month, that's €840 billion, then imagine if it goes on far longer than that, like 6 months, that's €3940 billion.

Man, yes, Russia has legitimate historical grievances w/ West. This Ukraine invasion is a war crime. Both are facts. The problem that I see, is that these sanctions are going to fuck up MANY countries that have nothing to do with the war and are leaving less room for Russia to negotiate without them having to rely on nukes. That’s my worry.