As said many times, I believe Putin is wholly and solely responsible for the criminal invasion of Ukraine, the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Wholly and solely. — Wayfarer

Then I suggest you start reading from page 1 and report back to me once you've caught up.

What say you?

European nations denounce Russian hybrid attacks, cable cut probes launched
^{— Andrius Sytas, Barbara Erling, Johan Ahlander, et al · Reuters · Nov 19, 2024}

Russian attacks on undersea cables 'most serious threat' to our infrastructure' - NATO
^{— Shona Murray · euronews · Nov 28, 2024 · 12m}

Lies, fear- and war-mongering? Either way, there are prior examples, not unheard of.

Well, what did you expect?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but NATO has been involved in a proxy war against Russia for about three years now. We're launching missiles into Russia. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was Russia firing missiles into Europe.

You're looking at the world through star-spangled glasses, that's why 579 pages in you still haven't gotten beyond the surface-level propaganda.

:100: :up: That's the truth, yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. The real problem is that there's going to be these people in the Trump administration.

And Trump's stance is basically what you said. Hence Putin can be confident and is confident that Trump will give him a similar lucrative peace deal just as Trump gave to the Taleban. There simply is no way in hell that Trump would put pressure on Putin here. Would he, after all what he has said, then truly ramp up the support of Ukraine to pressure Putin? Would he give US cruise missiles (with conventional warheads) to Ukraine to put more pressure on Putin? Does he really think that selling US oil and gas will put pressure on Putin?

Nope. Americans don't care so much for Ukraine and they'll believe the "forever war that only supports the military industrial comples" argument. The cop out will be marketed as a brilliant achievement and any critique of it will be labelled as outbursts of "Trump Derangement Syndrom". Just look at how little the surrender deal to the Taleban sparked outcry.

[...] yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread who promote "realpolitik" and the anti-American narrative and tow the Kremlin-line. — ssu

What's your deal with getting so personal?

But that enlargement to Ukraine they had already stopped before February 2022. — ssu

What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite...

What are you referring to here? The Brussel summit of 2021 reiterated, for the first time in 13 years, that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. It looks like the opposite... — Benkei

The guarantees that Germany made that Ukraine wouldn't become a member after the military buildup that was "military exercizes". Or just read Angela Merkels memoirs. Or look at the position of Hungary on Ukrainian NATO membership. Ukraine has gotten only this "member in the future" without actual timetable. Just look at the comparison to the two newest NATO members: Before actual membership application Turkey didn't see any problem in Finland joining NATO (Finland asked it before the application), but once the actual application was in, then the bazaar haggling by Erdogan started just as with Sweden. Yet now Hungary is directly opposed to Ukrainian membership even before there is no application process ongoing with Ukraine. That's a huge difference.

And moreover, what about the Brussel summit of 2021? Did it really iterate that? NO! There is NO talk of when Ukraine would join NATO. Here's what the actual communique said about Ukraine:

First of the situation that Ukraine and Georgia and Moldavia are in:

We reiterate our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova within their internationally recognised borders. In accordance with its international commitments, we call on Russia to withdraw the forces it has stationed in all three countries without their consent. We strongly condemn and will not recognise Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and denounce its temporary occupation. The human rights abuses and violations against the Crimean Tatars and members of other local communities must end. Russia’s recent massive military build-up and destabilising activities in and around Ukraine have further escalated tensions and undermined security. We call on Russia to reverse its military build-up and stop restricting navigation in parts of the Black Sea. We also call on Russia to stop impeding access to the Sea of Azov and Ukrainian ports. We commend Ukraine’s posture of restraint and diplomatic approach in this context. We seek to contribute to de-escalation. We are also stepping up our support to Ukraine. We call for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements by all sides, and support the efforts of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group. Russia, as a signatory of the Minsk Agreements, bears significant responsibility in this regard. We call on Russia to stop fuelling the conflict by providing financial and military support to the armed formations it backs in eastern Ukraine. We reiterate our full support to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

And here, about the relationship between Ukraine and NATO:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards. The success of wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law, will be crucial in laying the groundwork for a prosperous and peaceful Ukraine. Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine, are particularly important. We welcome significant reforms already made by Ukraine and strongly encourage further progress in line with Ukraine’s international obligations and commitments. We will continue to provide practical support to reform in the security and defence sector, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. We will also continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats, including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on Countering Hybrid Warfare. We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced situational awareness. Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine, including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force, and NATO exercises.

This simply is the "Ukraine can be a member in the future" -rhetoric given already ages ago WITH NO TIMETABLE. Just commentary that Ukraine has done good, but has still to do work in "wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law" and also "Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine". And this will be supported. The limbo that Ukraine was continuing in 2021. And seems to continue today.

The fact is that Russia demanded a veto say on any new members to NATO. That goes against the founding charter of NATO. Or should NATO add an article to it's charter "new members have to be accepted by Russia in order to join the organization"? The alarm bells for Finnish leadership went off already back then, because Russia was demanding this. Even in the above communique, NATO states that " We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference." NATO would go against it charter if it would have accepted Russia's demands.

It's like Turkey's bid for EU membership: it's not going to get into the EU (if it still wanted), yet the EU won't admit publicly that Turkey does have no possibility of joining.