. It’s all Kremlin propaganda—Stone has been in Putin’s sphere for years—but I think it is insight into the Russian point of view, complete with interviews with Yanukovich and Putin himself. — NOS4A2

Do note how far more emphasis Putin made then to the message and the information campaign. The confusion of the Maidan Revolution, or the Revolution of Dignity as Ukrainians call it, created an environment where the neo-nazi argument did have impact. Yes, there was the Azov battalion. But now? What genocide? Zelensky, who is Jewish, a neo-nazi?

Now Putin has fallen to similar propaganda that Stalin used when attacking my country.

No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.

In Russia they are totally silent about is that the fighting is all around Ukraine and in Kiev. More that this really would be a "peacekeeping operation" and the operations would be limited to the Donbass area.

It's been estimated that only about 1/3 of the forces have been active. And it seems to be a quite traditional attack. Ukrainian communications seem to be working quite well still.

In the 1990s, NATO members didn't want Russia as a member because it was believed that this would dilute US dominance of NATO. — frank

He did ask to join NATO to Clinton back in 2000, but was rejected. That likely didn't help either. — Manuel

I think the reason was that the response to Russia was basically: "NATO membership? Take a number and stand in line along with the other former satellite states of yours".

No special treatment was promised to Russia. Above all, as Russia was viewed no more as a threat, there was absolutely no incentive to truly connect new Russia to the existing European security system. At least with Germany there had been this idea that it's crucial to bind the country to a common European system, that you cannot leave Germany to it's own way. Yet with Russia...it was past. And NATO wasn't anymore about a common defense pact, but "new threats". Russia viewed this attitude as offensive. But the fact is that "Europeans" tend to be arrogant and self-centered.

And Putin only understood NATO as an equivalent of the Warsaw Pact. Not as a common European security arrangement, the "No Action, Talk Only" club that European organizations usually seem to be. And then there are the slavophiles, who despise everything from the West and the Russian "Westernizers".

This is the real tragedy. But you would have to have larger than life politicians to understand this and make the huge effort to integrate Russia to the West.

↪ssu Look at the level of your discourse. — baker

That is the discourse or the level of reasoning for this war from Vladimir Putin. Words he has used to describe the enemy Russia going after. The

And trolls like @Apollodorus are insisting for Western Europe to "have peace" with Putin, when there isn't a war between the countries. Which @Baden accurately referred to be "copypasta from an intern working in a Russian propaganda agency".

The reality isn't hard to find here. Ukrainian people are united and putting up a brave defence against an aggressor. The Hungarian Uprising comes to my mind.



Of course, this time there are protests in Russia too, not just in other countries.

In what way have, for example, we in Sweden "sold our souls" to the US? Please explain, from the perspective of my country, how we've done this and we can start to evaluate your "argument". — Christoffer

Soon you will be nazis. Just like we will be.

And we will both be an existential threat to Russia, because... the US is bad.

It's "silly" only in the sense that it comes too late. — baker

Too late to believe... let me see, that "Russian peacekeepers go to an artificial country that is headed by neo-nazis and drug users to de-nazify the place?"

Yeah right.

↪Apollodorus

Generally, what we try to do here is analysis, which involves reason and evidence. If you're not here for that, don't post in the thread. You can do random nonsense in the Shoutbox or the Lounge. — Baden

:up:

Do notice also that France is doing this.

Macron wrote that France will provide Ukraine with a “additional budgetary assistance of 300 million euros” and “will provide the defensive material they need."

So when in 1997 Ukraine signed the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25457.htm that was what? A joke? A cunning double bluff? — Isaac

Uh uh, did it ever occurred that Russia also signed in 1997 in May, the founding act on "Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation"? Months earlier than Ukraine a similar charter? It did. From the founding act:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, hereinafter referred to as NATO and Russia, based on an enduring political commitment undertaken at the highest political level, will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.

NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. Making this commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia. They intend to develop, on the basis of common interest, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and enduring partnership.

And the act goes on with further details...

So do notice that both Russia and Ukraine were in the Partnership for Peace program with NATO.

It was President Leonid Kuchma who first started talking about Ukraine joining NATO in 2002. Yet far before that, Russia had already started to operate for the annexation of Crimea, firstly (as then later done by Putin), making it "indepenedent" and then joining Russia:

In early 1994, Crimea elected Yuri Meshkov as President. Meshkov, an ethnic Russian and former K.G.B. border guard, won overwhelming support from fellow ethnic Russians in a campaign managed by a reputed covert operative from Moscow. Meshkov's pro-Russian position and claims for Crimea's independence had complicated relations between Kiev and Simferopol, and between Kiev and Moscow. The first Crimean president expressed his views to reporters in mid-February 1994 as follows:

The main aspect of my policy is Crimea's independence. Independence alone will allow us to solve our economic problems. The results of the presidential elections confirmed the population's orientation to economic, cultural and other links with Russia, and to reunion with Russia....The Black Sea Fleet must be indivisible, belong to Russia and be based in Sevastopol which is an inalienable part of the Republic of Crimea.

(See Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet in Russian- Ukrainian Relations)

Hence as early as 1994, Russia was supporting an agenda of reuniting Crimea with Russia. Since it didn't pan out earlier, and many other things were done to get Crimea, just like giving Russian passports of Crimeans etc, the Maidan revolution was a perfect opportunity to do it militarily.

The idea that the annexation of Ukrainian territory was in some way a response to US actions is simply and utterly false. Russia has had real territorial ambitions over Ukrainian territory and hence is acting as a classical imperialist power wanting secure geostrategically important territory. Even @Apollodorus admits this.

In order to keep Ukraine out of NATO there would have been a multitude different was to achieve this. Just as Russia has gotten all the US bases to be closed in Central Asia. And do remember that Ukraine is a democracy, however corrupt, and what the people think does matter and hence the polls do matter also.

Now Putler has surely united the Ukrainians. All the support for the Ukrainians defending their country and for the Russians protesting against the war.

Putin is just the kind of man that Trump dreams of being but unlike Trump he has a at least a modicum of executive ability. — Wayfarer

You know, I've come to this conclusion myself too. Trump as the self centered narcissist genuinely admires the strong man Putin and Trumps actions have to be viewed from this perspective. But for Trump reality is a reality show, while Putin genuinely seems to view things that he is doing from a historical perspective. Hence his actions now are responses to things that happened decades ago.

Just look at Putin's war speech. What takes a long time is for him to cover the end of USSR and the Cold War, NATO enlargement, Kosovo, Libya, WMD's of Iraq, reference to Germany invading Soviet Union in 1941. The speech port of the artificial Ukraine, which now peacekeepers go now to de-nazify, surprisingly short.

How relevant are these? Is this more serious than was previously expected (the sanctions), or is it more or less "normal"? — Manuel

Things promised earlier. I think the basic problem is that you cannot make really hard sanctions as they will start to hurt you a lot. Now that would really show resolve, but I don't think that people care so much of the plight of the Ukrainians to have problems themselves. I think Germany doesn't have any interest to have rolling blackouts and an energy crisis especially when it's still winter.

And the simple reason is this:

Russia is the main EU supplier of crude oil, natural gas and solid fossil fuels

The stability of the EU’s energy supply may be threatened if a high proportion of imports are concentrated among relatively few external partners. In 2019, almost two thirds of the extra-EU's crude oil imports came from Russia (27 %), Iraq (9 %), Nigeria and Saudi Arabia (both 8 %) and Kazakhstan and Norway (both 7 %). A similar analysis shows that almost three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (41 %), Norway (16 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while over three quarters of solid fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (47 %), the United States (18 %) and Australia (14 %).

His speeches and conduct do not indicate the measured reasoning of a rational statesman. — Wayfarer

Yes, well,... we have had Donald Trump, you know. And others. Not hard to find, actually.

But your argumentation is totally reasonable. I think here what is notable is the change to his earlier speeches and texts. Yet a lot is quite the same, actually. Perhaps Vlad doesn't try to be nice to people, but shows what he feels.

The US imposed sanctions on Putin.

Don't know how much it matters. — Manuel

Eu imposed similar sanctions. Also foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's assets were frozen.

I guess Germany and Italy were against the Swift-sanctions, so no Swift embargo.

(Do notice that there is a Nordstream 1 -gasline operational and something like 55% of Germany's gas comes from Russia)

What? How is that evidence that Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to join anyway? — Isaac

How about polls about NATO membership in Ukraine. Is that enough for you?



Due note please the friendly attitudes that obviously Ukrainians had before Putin started bombing and annexing their country.

The simple fact that there was no huge popularity to join NATO before, when Putin hadn't been so aggressive. And Crimea and Donbass were in Ukraine. All those Russian speaking and ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. Viktor Janukovytš by the way came from the Donbass region and even they, the People's Republics, didn't want him anymore. But before in 2010 he had won in elections Julija Tymoshenko.

War is also dying. (As obviously people can understand)

If well over 137 Ukrainians died in two days of fighting, then that is about the number of 50 000 deaths in a year. From reports of military losses, the rate something equivalent of daily losses that the US suffered in a month during the heaviest fighting in Iraq of Afghanistan. Just remembering that to combat deaths there usually are many more wounded. So this is a very large and bloody war.

And Putin hasn't wimped out of any war he has started: either he finishes the job (Chechnia, Georgia) or continues the job (Syria).

But @Baden, that is precisely what I'm talking with Finladization. The thing I continued:

But what is obvious is he would want to control over the doings of Finland. — ssu

What you refer to is precisely what I referred to. It's already happening. Remember that Finland is the only Western neighbor of Russia that a) isn't a member of NATO and b) doesn't have Russian troops inside it's borders.

Of course, if I listen to actual Russian opposition leaders, they are painting a far more bleaker future for my country alongside Putin.

Aleksei Navalnyi tweeted (about Vladimir Putin's speech) few days ago:

Replace "Ukraine" in his speech with "Kazakhstan", "Belarus", "Baltic countries", "Azerbaijan", "Uzbekistan" and so on, even including "Finland". And think about where the train of geopolitical thought of this senile grandfather may take him next.

All this ended very badly for everyone in 1979. And it will end just as badly now. Afghanistan was destroyed, but the USSR also received a mortal wound.

See Aleksei Navalnyi's tweet.

:up:

No one knows, but plenty speculates that even if he succeeds in defeating Ukraine, he will still not benefit from this. There's almost no "win" for him in any of this. — Christoffer

Which really begs the question why.

The idea of gaining physical territory is quite anachronistic. First it has huge political drawbacks and every nation that annexes something from somebody else will have a bad time with it. Be it country like Morocco, Israel, China among others. It's totally reasonable just why the international community doesn't accept annexations. Then comes the other issues.

A desert where nobody lives with a huge oil field or natural resources might be understandable. A region where majority of the population is favorable to you, even if the economy is a basket case, is still understandable. Hence annexation of Crimea was logical imperialism in the sense that Crimea was only an economic problem, not a security problem. Yet to take by war a region that is already poor with people very hostile towards you doesn't make any sense. Does Putin think that capturing Kiev and installing a puppet regime and things will be fine? Those troops have to stay and occupy a huge country of 44 million people.

But again, he made the intellectual journey already years ago with grand thoughts of Eurasia and with the thoughts of Aleksandr Dugin.

If you still don't understand, do let me know and I'll explain it to you in greater detail — Apollodorus

Oh I do understand. You cannot be more clear. I did try asking what you thought of the annexations and you have given a clear answer.

Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. — Baden

Psychology doesn't matter at all, actions do. Yet usually one has to take that what a person says is what he truly thinks. Of course he can lie for obvious purposes, just like saying Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine. And then, invasion. But the fact that NATO is out to get Russia and won't stop at anything can a thing that Putin genuinely thinks is true. Or any opposition that he faces is only implanted by the West and it's desire to instigate "Color Revolutions".

Similar event is actually the overdrive that democrats went with the Russian meddling in the elections. Yes, the Russians were active. But only up to a point. No, they didn't decide the elections.

It can be answered seriously, but it's an intellectually lazy, boring, and counterproductive line to take, especially when there are obviously identifiable reasons for what's going on. If you look at the situation in terms of pure power politics, Putin may well come out on top. If you make the mistake of searching for some moral element, then you shouldn't be analyzing politics at all because it will all look mad. — Baden

I agree that just saying "he's mad" is intellectually lazy and boring.

Perhaps it should be described a bit better. That he is confined to a cabal that won't say anything against him. Now, if you don't have anybody challenging you, you really might go astray in your thinking. Especially when you start wars. I think the now noted exchange between Putin and his Intelligence Chief shows that people around him are terrified of him. Or at least, it seems like that.



The fact is that politicians start to believe their own lies. Believing ones own lies is then viewed as a sign of strength. Because "the truth" doesn't matter, everything is just usable rhetoric to advance your agenda and to obtain your objectives. I think this was also evident in the Trump administration.

Keep on trolling.

But I have to say I like what Baden posted earlier. Tells a lot about you @Apollodorus:

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense.
— ssu

for some strange reason you keep blabbering on about "Russian empire"
— Apollodorus

You obviously don't understand the term "empire".
— Apollodorus

....

Putin ... clearly intends to restore some of the Russian Empire, which I believe he is perfectly entitled to do.
— Apollodorus

Presented without comment. — Baden

Probably the real reason why Saddam Hussein had to be ousted was the flow of sanction busting black market oil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hardly.

Likely it was simply that the neocons could hijack power in the US and used the "window of opportunity" given by 9/11. Besides, Saddam Hussein had tried to kill the father of the sitting President in Saudi Arabia, so George Bush younger might have had a grudge against him. And it looked like an easy picking I guess. Perfect example of American imperialism at it's worst.

Neocon madness:

Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yes. The obvious evidence is that Russia has annexed Crimea. Case closed.

If that evidence for you of Russia having territorial desires for Ukraine, I wouldn't know what is. Or the many Putin speeches and writings how Ukraine is an artificial country and how Ukraine and Russia belong together. The last European leader having similar rhetoric was Slobodan Milosevic towards other members of Yugoslavia. Thanks to him, the disintegration of Yugoslavia didn't happen as peacefully as the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. — Isaac

Yes. And luckily the Baltic States did make a choice. Both Sweden and Finland sighed a relief when the Baltic countries joined NATO. The two countries surely aren't in any position to give any security guarantees to Baltic States (which was informally asked first by UK).

Ukraine made the wrong choices. It gave up it's 1900 nuclear warheads to Russia. It gave them up for a bullshit piece of paper in 1994 where the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.

It made the wrong choice of believing that international boundaries would be respected and specific guarantees made to it would protect it. It didn't.

Just for people to know what the Budapest memorandum was about. That the countries gave back the nuclear warheads in their possession, UK, US and Russia promised the following things.

1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2)Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3)Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4)Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5)Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6)Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitment.

Once Putin rose to power, the maneuvers to obtain Crimea started in 2009.

This is probably gonna be the start of the downfall of Russia overall if I'm being frank. — Mr Bee

If Ethiopia has made it so far, so will Russia.

It will persist. Frail, bitter, troubled... or perhaps something even improves! I sure hope so, as it would be nice to see Russian tourists back here again. They are nice people. It sad to see here the border region, where they have made a lot of investments for Russian tourists. Now as the ruble has crashed, there's none of them.

6,000 warheads. Delusional dictator with nuclear arsenal and historic grudges is no laughing matter — Wayfarer

Who mades threats using them, has held military exercises where nukes are used to "escalete to de-escalate" the situation.

It's really a serious question, not just propaganda.

I think he has lost touch with his people. Doesn't care about what they think or where the economy goes. Just claiming genocide and Ukrainians being nazis doesn't sink in...especially when you have before said that all the talk of you invading Ukraine is American nonsense. He truly made a "great" effort in getting Russians to back the second Chechen war, which basically was his election campaign for the presidency. But then he was young.

Now at the second day of the war there ought to be some war enthusiasm. Talk about a messy idiotic war like Afghanistan.

The basic problem is that he cannot understand that a harmless opposition can be that: harmless. But for him any opposition is an existential threat. This is the weak spot of authoritarian regimes: if you don't have to show economic growth, people will not be happy and your response will make things worse.

I'm not sure what the pre-existing war's got do with it — Isaac

Meaning that there already has been a war going on since 2014.

Pro-Western imperialist agendas cause more death and misery than this war will - ten times over. — Isaac

Yet that doesn't justify Russia's actions. And when Russia has gone to war, it has been far more indifferent to civilian casualties as it is with it's own casualties. This can easily be seen from the war in Syria, Chechen Republic, Afghanistan. But that doesn't make then US a white knight.

Russia are not a crazy one-off Marvel bad guy which sprung out of nowhere. The US are not white knights who are going to come in on their chargers and save the world — Isaac

Of course. But note that sometimes they are correct in what they say: Russia's critique of NATO's actions in Kosovo or Libya are fair and understandable as is now Biden's critique of Putin's attack.

It doesn't make it OK to beat up someone who didn't attack you because another guy has done also in different occasions. Of course there are no white knights and evil entities, but simply to put it: imperialism is wrong. If countries have become independent, they really have had the motivation to become independent. And they have the right for it, you simply cannot make the case that Ukrainian independence is an "astro-turf" idea. Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial", hence I can annex territories from it.

(Btw, it's telling that these People's Republics, once Putin acknowledged their independence, waved Russian flags, not their own flags.)

This is an inevitable conflict, caused as much by Western provocation and puppet-mastery as it is by Russian lunacy and stubbornness. — Isaac

It's only the "as much" which I reject to as basically already Ukraine wasn't going to become NATO and the simple fact IS THAT IF PUTIN WOULDN'T HAVE TERRITORIAL DESIRES IN UKRAINE, UKRAINE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN NATO. Remember that prior 2014 Ukrainians genuinely thought of Russians as their brothers. Vladimir Putin was very popular then in Ukraine.

Everything doesn't revolve around the US. The actual relations and realities between Ukraine and Russia matter here.

I don't know why you're pretending you cannot tell the difference to aspirant members bordering Russia and existing members.

Or the fact that over asking is a rather transparent negotiation tactic. — Benkei

Benkei, the demands that Putin has made for NATO do effect existing NATO members. Not only aspirant members. Actually, the only "aspirant" members are Ukraine and Georgia now I guess.

Russia and all NATO states that were members in May 1997, before the first eastern European countries were invited to join the alliance, shouldn’t “deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe” that were not already in place on that date, according to one of the treaties published Friday by the Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

This means that NATO countries like US, Germany, UK, the Netherlands, cannot exercise in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary or in 11 other member states.

A mutual defense pack that cannot train inside it's own borders basically cripples NATO. But if you think that appeasement would somehow work, Putin simply would push as long until he can. After all, he wants the eradication of the whole NATO. And in his war speech he was quite clear who he sees as the enemy:

Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy.

Merely a tool of US sidelines totally every other member in NATO, who actually have felt that it has been a good tool for their own security policy.

I think it would be informative to read what Putin actually has said: Putin's speech 24.2.2022

It's telling that there are there are protests against the war in Russia. Not much, but something.

(Washington Post)MOSCOW — Thousands of people protested President Vladimir Putin’s attacks on Ukraine in cities across Russia on Thursday, a striking show of anger in a nation where spontaneous mass demonstrations are illegal and protesters can face fines and jail.

More than 1,700 people were arrested in at least 47 cities across the nation, according to rights group OVD-Info.

Even Russia Today confirmed the protests:

Anti-war slogans filled central Moscow and Saint Petersburg streets on Thursday, as hundreds took to protest against the ongoing Russian military operation in Ukraine. Police in the Russian capital have said they temporarily detained 600 people.

Yet what is more ominous to Putin isn't that there aren't great enthusiasm for the war. If he has been methodically using the Stalinist playbook on how to attack, the Russians seem not to be there. After all, they were just a while ago said that Russia wouldn't invade and that all was just hype from the US. At least in 2014 Russians did openly use the ribbon of St George and the annexation was popular with Russians. Seems that it isn't now. Putin has gotten old. And perhaps total power has corrupted him totally and he has lost his touch to the country.

I hope starting this war will be the start of the downfall of Putin.

So Finland is next? — frank

I don't think so. Not at least in the same way.

He hasn't written a long rambling text about how Finland is an artificial country and actually it would be best for everybody that it would be part of Russia. But what is certain that he doesn't want Finland (or Sweden) to join NATO.

But what is obvious is he would want to control over the doings of Finland. I'll give examples: Like that the SVR chief in Helsinki would give merely as a cordial suggestion, a speech written by the SVR, for Finland to give at the UN general meeting. And that the Finnish President would then give the speech word for word at the UN.

Or then that due to aggressive behavior of the US, Finland (and Sweden) would abstain from any military training with NATO.

And then perhaps that Finland would have some military exercises with Russia (something that the Soviets asked, but Finns declined).

And then perhaps that Russia would partly take care of our air defense (which again the Soviets asked, and to which the Finns didn't give an answer and no Russian SAMs were deployed to Finland).

That kind of control Putin surely would want from us.

It's like the 70's show!

As far as anarchy, that's exactly how you and I are operating right now. I don't require a government to interact with you. I simply have to engage with you in acceptance of the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source. I need nothing more than that principle, same as everyone else. — Garrett Travers

But Garret, you likely know this forum. If one of us starts flaming, makes toxic ad hominems or promotes openly nazism, that member would be off from this forum in and instant never being able to return (assuming they found out you are already banned). And likely a lot of bots and algorithms are checking automatically what we are discussing and if enough alarms go off, someone will check what is this about.

We have everywhere these Overton windows and have had them in the past and will have them in the future. So even now there are rules and regulations what to follow, just for functionality, not for control or power. And even that "the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source" is obviously a limitation to our "freedom".

Yes, I don’t get the Nazi angle. But upon briefly looking into it, Russia and pro-Russia forces have been using antifascist rhetoric and evoking “genocide” against the “Orange Junta” since Poroshenko. Here’s a good article on it. Putin using the same rhetoric (among many other things left unreported) to justify his advance the direct result of this species of belief and propaganda. — NOS4A2

Antifascism is something from the Soviet vocabulary.

Simple fact is that Russia had it's Great Patriotic War against Hitler, so the idea of fighting Nazis is much appreciated in Russia. In a war you dehumanize the enemy. If Ukrainians are brothers, then there have to be someone that have to be the enemy: the Nazis! If Putin targets the Baltic States and NATO unity, you will surely read from the Putinist what kind of closet-Nazis the Baltic people are. Or the Finns. Or the Swedes. Because why would you help a bunch of Nazis, when your grandfathers or great grandfathers fought them also?

Putin wants to rebuild Russia as a great power, NOT the Soviet Union. Ukraine was already part of Russia long before the Soviets came on the scene. — Apollodorus

He wants to reconstruct the pre-Soviet Russian Empire. He sees the Russian Revolution as an interruption in that project. — jamalrob

It's good that people find here some agreement. Of course some view that he (Putin) is entitled for this, while others do not. But the fact is, this is not just about NATO enlargement. Hopefully some would understand that.

But what really has happened is the World has changed now far more than what happened in 9/11.

The Second Cold War is a reality. No "resets" happening anymore. People will start thinking about nuclear weapons again.

And the blissful trust in globalization has collapsed. Western countries will understand that they cannot rely on Russia (or China), when it comes to their strategic resources, at least. Western Europe cannot rely on Russia fossil fuels or Chinese cheap labour. Security of supply will be one thing.

They should've sacrificed Ukraine and at a much earlier stage. It's no use to hold a position you're not planning on defending. — Benkei

Sacrificed Ukraine? You think sacrificing Ukraine and Putin would be fine. And what is so wrong to respect the borders of sovereign states that earlier Russia has accepted? I can assure you, the next thing would be to demand NATO to basically end the agreement with a huge number of it's current members because Putin has already demanded it!

And what is here the position? That one former US President went to comment that both Ukraine and Georgia will be NATO members? That's how far it got, but correct me if I'm wrong. Because NATO membership has to be accepted by all members, not by what the US president says, as article 10 refers.

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.

The Azov Battalion was incorporated into the national guard of Ukraine, though. The UN has accused them of atrocity and war crime in the past. I wouldn’t say the Ukrainian government are neo-Nazis, but such elements are present and currently fighting against the Russians. Even NBC recently filmed them training old ladies and other locals. — NOS4A2

One battalion, that had a strength of 300 in 2014 isn't much in a 200 000 strong armed forces. (You know, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps)

And if you don't believe that anything hasn't been done after they were put into the National guard, be then sceptical about it.

But it's notable to understand why this Azov battalion, that hasn't been at the frontline (until now, I guess) since 2014, was then important. Ukraine was totally incapable of responding to the Russian attack in 2014. They could only move one paratroop brigade into the Donbass region that was all. It took six months for Ukraine to mobilize other army units with main battle tanks into the area and during that time the volunteer battalions held an important role. Do notice that then also Russia just "provided assistance" to the Rebel People's Republics. Old VICE NEWS reports portray vividly and truthfully in what total disarray the Ukrainian forces were: some even gave up their weapons to angry Donbass people. And ordinary people sent food and supplies to the soldiers at the front.

It would be like if the US government collapsed and the army really wasn't incapable of getting anything to a border, then I guess (and in their wet dreams) a ton of militia people in the US would run down to the border and defend it. Who likely would have a lot of politically incorrect ideas.

But if you think then Putin isn't talking horseshit when he says nazis are rampant in the Ukrainian government and the country has to be de-nazified, well uh...

Poroshenko was many things, but "neo-Nazi" he was not. — SophistiCat

Yes. And not even somebody that Victoria Nuland was talking about (a favorite trope of those favoring the Russian narrative use about the interim government of Ukraine).

But for many that elections are held and people choose someone isn't the correct narrative. Everybody are just puppets installed by Great Powers. If the crisis would happen between my country and Russia, suddenly the Finnish politicians would be just the pawns of the CIA and Soros too, I guess.

I still do not trust the line we're sold as to the cause of this war. — Benkei

And which is that by your definition? Well, Putins accusations of a genocide in Donbass surely isn't true as is the line that Ukraine forms a threat to the World's largest nuclear power.

I'm also, as usual, flabbergasted how little value NATO and the US see in being considered trustworthy and dependable. And they got owned by Russia twice in basically the same theater. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What should they have done?

The choice is a pro-Russian proxy government, sanctioned and led by kleptocrats or a pro-US proxy government indebted to the hilt and led by stone cold profiteers. — Isaac

Let me get this straight: for you it doesn't matter that already 14000 have been killed in a limited war that now has been changed to unlimited conventional war, where it's totally possible that even nuclear weapons could be used (and likely there's a bigger death toll). That doesn't mean anything?

Is it really EXACTLY the same thing that some George Soros finances some pro-Western group which later either succeeds or fails in elections? Really no difference?

For me when Bush invaded Iraq was wrong, because is was a faulty stupid decision that already (and incredibly) had been acknowledged to be utterly bad choice even by the perpetrators.

Putin invading now the whole of Ukraine is as bad and faulty and stupid decision as was the invasion of Iraq was. Just read what said about the reaction of Russians. Ordinary Russians aren't for this war, they are confused about it. There are no huge jingoist patriotic celebrations on the Red Square thanking Putin for his decision to go to war. It was different in 2014.

I think that people have this idea that because the US has made so stupid mistakes and has bombed so many places, now, for some reason, it has to be the culprit in this fiasco too. Because, how else could one explain this than because of the US?

The Svoboda party was in the interim government for some months and then didn't go anywhere in the elections. And it's been eight years since the interim government, but anyway.

And Trump was supported by neonazis. Now, what's the connection then with neonazis and the Biden administration?

I'll just repeat: In the confusion of the Maidan revolution, it was understandable to think "what the heck is going on" with extreme right-wing groups in Ukraine. And naturally Russian propaganda smeared back then all of the interim government to be neonazis. But elections showed there wasn't much support for them, to put it simply.

Isaac, let's start from the facts, shall we.

For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US. — Isaac

Oleh Tyahnybok wasn't ever installed to power. That simply is not correct.

After the Maidan revolution the interim government was lead by Arseniy Yatsenyuk and then later the president after elections was Petro Poroshenko. And the current leader, a former comedian, has a true grudge against Poroshenko. Zelenskyi's party has basically been against extremists in Ukrainian politics. I'd define it (the current political party in power in Ukraine) as centrist populist even if they have said they are liberal and libertarian, they have back away from being supporters of neoliberalism. (As obviously Ukrainians don't like neoliberalism)

Oleh Tyahnyboks party got seats in 2012 to the Ukrainian parliament. Now the faction he represents is down to one seat. It's not in the administration. Oleh Tyahnybok got 1,16% of the vote in the Presidential elections in 2014 after the Maidan Revolution. So it's really meaningless. But yes, there are these fringe movements in Ukraine. But they are not in power.

In the confusion of the Maidan revolution it would be understandable to take in the argument that "these are Nazis", but now, AFTER EIGHT YEARS, to reurgitate the same things again don't work. As if nothing has happened in Ukrainian politics. As if neonazis really had anything to do with Ukrainian politics or held power in the 200 000 strong Ukrainian armed forces. Yes, volunteers were the first response when the war broke out in 2014.

We shouldn't forget that Darth Vader was also political candidate in Ukraine. No, seriously:


Which just shows how pissed off Ukrainians are with their corrupt politicians, but at least they do have democracy.

Ah! The Ukrainian government are nazis.

Well, as I discussed with @StreetlightX earlier, there indeed still is this neonazi party in the Ukrainian Parliament. With ONE SEAT. And it is NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT. Zelenskyi's party was formed in 2018 and he was elected President of Ukraine in 2019, beating incumbent president Petro Poroshenko with nearly 73% of the vote to Poroshenko's 25%. So I guess Ukrainians weren't so enthuastic about Poroshenko.

So Zelenskyi's party wasn't even then on the political arena when McCain was roaming around supporting the Maidan...

And actually, Volodymyr Zelenskyi is jewish.

So, anyone believing the imminent need of de-nazification of the Ukrainian government... :roll:

Yeah, the airport is required to create an “air bridge” in order to bring in more troops. What I don’t understand is why they’d let CNN film them, potentially compromising the operation. — NOS4A2

Likely because they are Russian paratroops and not GRU or intelligence troops. They haven't yet been ordered not to speak to any journalist, so they behave as soldiers typical will behave.