Hezbollah seems to have bombarded a farm in the north of Israel with rockets and artillery, and the Israelis are retaliating with airstrikes. Certainly a worrying situation.

Given the shifting geopolitical situation and rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, I understand the fear.

What hangs as a shadow over these conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah, is the question of whether this will be the time Israel's historical rivals may come to settle old scores.

With international politics being what they are, this is an incredibly tricky situation.

One can only hope that this powder keg doesn't finally blow, but even so I don't think it's a matter of 'if' but a matter of 'when'.

Similar to what's come up before, suppose that Ukraine had ... ▸ declared neutrality with respect to international military alliance memberships, formally on paper / constitutionally; ▸ retained right to self-defense, e.g. from invaders (shouldn't be controversial), including foreign training and/or weaponry as the case may be; ▸ explicitly stated that others respect sovereignty, self-determination, freedom to seek own path (shouldn't be controversial); ▸ actively pursued EU membership, and perhaps sought other such cooperation ... Something along those lines.

The question is what might we then have expected from the Kremlin. Seems like they covered their bases, but what might have transpired then? — jorndoe

I gave a pretty elaborate response to this question, by the way:

Pre-2014, some sort of commitment to neutrality backed up by action could have probably avoided this war.

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians.

Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object.

The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible.

Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation.

EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term.


Right now it will be very difficult to come to a peace agreement, since trust between Russia and the West has been completely shattered (it should be attempted regardless).

Russia is not going to return the territories it now occupies, simply because the trust isn't there to leave Crimea in the same vulnerable situation that it was in. That was the point of their invasion. And it is unlikely Ukraine (and Washington) would agree to a peace deal that doesn't return territory.

The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Regardless of NATO (and the US) — jorndoe

The way that you phrased your hypothetical, those other countries would be forming a bloc that would function essentially the same as NATO.

So in that sense it doesn't matter which military bloc or hegemon takes the role of NATO and US respectively, assuming of course there's a credible threat of Russia being kicked out of Ukraine permanently.

A move to democracy against corruption etc — jorndoe

That's a bit of a rose-coloured way of imagining things.

Having the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs design the government hardly seems democratic to me. I also wonder how much of that 5 billion was spent on bribes. :sweat:

I was called 'Pro-Putin' for just defending Dostoevsky... *sigh* — javi2541997

My suggestion would be, don't waste your time replying to forum members that try to frame you as being partisan. They're not worth your time and effort.

For me, it is clear that Washington is so interested in degrading Russia and pushing EU members against them. A terrible situation for both Europeans and Russians, but not for Americans. Yikes! — javi2541997

Exactly. European and American interests diverge at key points, and the current European leadership is completely incapable of safeguarding those lines.

You calling it a "victory" for the Russians, tells more about you than about the Russians. — neomac

Damn. I extend an olive branch and gave a serious response to your question, and you give me this? How sad.

Enough with the sass. If you want a straightforward answer, just ask a straightforward question. Unclear, loaded or passive aggressive questions I don't care to respond to.

Anyway, you've been mostly polite thus far:

What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? — jorndoe

If Ukraine's neutral status were threatened in some other way, we might expect the very same behavior from the Kremlin, especially if no meaningful dialogue takes place.

What's up with the repeated misrepresentation anyways? — jorndoe

I never said the Maidan coup was "just a US thing", so I'm not sure what misrepresentation you're talking about.

What does winning the war mean exactly? — neomac

Obviously I cannot look into the minds of the Kremlin, but if I had to make an educated guess:

- Either force a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem that involves a neutral Ukraine.

- In the absence of a diplomatic solution, Russia would annex those parts of Ukraine that it deems vitally important (unclear if this includes more than what it already holds), and turn the rest of Ukraine into a ruin.

What inquiries? I'll happily answer your questions, but you have a rather unclear way of asking them.

On an added note, the Russians seem to be getting rather boisterous as of late.

I take that as a clear sign they believe the West is out of aces and they are winning the war. Any takers?

I didn't talk about 'forcing'. The US was aware of and crossed the Kremlin's red lines despite over a decade of warnings, and now Ukraine is paying the bill while Western political figures are gushing about how this war is a cheap way of keeping Russia occupied.

What do you think about that?

And what do you make of the fact that Washington was deeply aware of the Kremlin's red lines, crossed them anyway and is now having Ukraine pay the bill?

These oompa loompas keep saying the quiet part out loud:



This time some cringy quotes from the Minister of Defence from my very own home country. In Dutch we say, "plaatsvervangende schaamte".

It is very much in our interest to support Ukraine, because they are fighting this war. We're not fighting it. — Kasja Ollongren

In a way of course supporting Ukraine is a very cheap way to make sure Russia with this regime is not a threat to the NATO alliance. — Kasja Ollongren

Ukraine's fight is being instrumentalized by the West. Occupying Russia in Ukraine is a great way of keeping NATO safe.

Let's ignore the fact that that very same NATO dangled the promise of safety infront of the Ukrainians and goaded them into playing hardball with the Russians.

NATO security at Ukraine's expense? It's what I and many others have been saying here for a while.

What's worse is that this "plan" is fucking stupid, excuse my French. It's probably what the Americans are whispering in the ears of our dimwitted European "leadership" to foster support for a war that's not in Europe's interest.

How is NATO going to be secure by essentially degrading European-Russian relations and remilitarizing Russia while DEmilitarizing Europe?

But hey, folks like Kasja get to play pretend with the big boys in Washington, so all is well.

They even named the money, the amount of money that was spent on this coup. Everything is possible. — Putin

Well, he is not wrong:

Victoria Nuland: Ukrainians Deserve Respect From Their Government

We've invested over 5 billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals, that will ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine. — Victoria Nuland

This was posted on December 19th, 2013. Months before the coup take place.

Did they make good on their promises to ensure a secure, prosperous and democratic Ukraine? I think not, but you be the judge.

A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate. — EricH

This doesn't describe the war in Ukraine, though. Russia doesn't claim any such rights.

And that expression of concerns has been generally understood to require world domination by force. — tim wood

The Russians are after world domination by force? You'll have to explain that one.

As to refusing dialogue, that is simply a lie, and the speaker of it either a liar, ignorant, or stupid. Take your pick, combinations allowed. — tim wood

The US has never over the course of some 20+ years veered from its course to do exactly what the Russians were warning them about.

Even diplomatic negotiations like Minsk were used as a tool of conflict.

So yes, I maintain that no (meaningful) dialogue has taken place.

There's an argument to be made that it is the Russians themselves who have "no interest...". That it is the Russians themselves who choose, have long chosen, to live as enemies in a world that instead wants friends. That it is the Russians themselves who have been their own worst enemy. — tim wood

Well, the Russians have never made a secret of what they believe their security concerns are. It is the West (primarily the US) that has refused dialogue of any sort for as long as this conflict has existed.

With your remarks about the Russian constitution, you seem to imply you don't view these things as matters that should be discussed, but rather taken at face value and dismissed if it doesn't appeal. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, if you have no interest in other countries' views and their security concerns, what situation do you believe you'll end up with other than endless war?

Ok, then. Have fun going to war until the only side that's right is the only side that's left, I suppose.

To be honest, Brzezinski deserves to be taken seriously.

In 1997 he wrote an influential book called 'The Grand Chessboard' in which he detailed American geopolitical strategy post-Cold War.

Here's a post I wrote months ago with some juicy quotes from Brzezinski's book that will give a glimpse into the mindset of the Washington elite. It paints a rather bleak picture.

Why someone would refer to Brzezinski to deny Washington's culpability remains a mystery.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. — wonderer1

Nah. What you're suggesting is a joke, really.

The depths at which the pipeline was damaged are within technical scuba diving range. — wonderer1

The depths of the pipeline (80m - 110m) are well within what is considered 'technical diving' range (60m+). Things like oxygen toxicity and decompression sickness become life hazards, and these dives are only to be undertaken by trained, experienced and well-equipped divers. It will be hard for civilians to even find training for dives below 100m, but it is possible.

The pipeline is likely easy to spot on a modern 'fish finder'. — wonderer1

No - at least not with something you can simply strap to a small sailing yacht. Again, the depths of the pipelines is between 80m - 110m. You would need something sizable to reach that deep.

Furthermore, sound doesn't travel in straight lines underwater, so "spotting" is easy. Pinpointing to the degree of accuracy required for an operation like this is a whole other ballgame that would require extensive surveillance.

GPS controlled autopilot makes holding a position relatively simple... — wonderer1

On the type of sailing yacht purported to have carried out the operation? Nah.

You may be confused by measurements in meters instead of feet. Or maybe you don't understand the technical implications of dangling a few hundred tons of explosives from a wire and having people work on it at a depth of a 100m.

That's all based on a hunch though [...] — Benkei

That the US is responsible is certainly just an educated guess of mine. But I tried to focus more on the absurdity of the theory that's being presented.

The estimates was hundreds of pounds of TNT btw, so not at impossible as you might think, [...] — Benkei

The issue here is that there's no way to get hundreds of pounds of explosives to the seafloor without specialized equipment. I think we can agree that they didn't just kick a few hundred pounds of C4 overboard and hoped for the best, so there's an explanation lacking of how they did this off the back of a yacht.

Handling these types of weights underwater (let alone explosives) is a delicate task that requires absolute precision, but let me get to the next point:

I don't know what your list of equipment is based on. — Benkei

- The precise location of these pipelines isn't public knowledge, so some form of seabed scanning equipment is required to locate the pipelines before the operation can take place. Trial and error is not realistic. It's possible they got the information from a third party.

- Ships don't lie still in the water (and neither do explosive packages for that matter). They drift. And when one is lowering hundreds of pounds worth of explosives into the water that people have to handle at a 100m depth, a vessel is required that can maintain its position with a high degree of accuracy.

- I don't know how one would handle hundreds of pounds of explosives without atleast a crane.

- And diving equipment is self-explanatory. Presumably the divers had to carry out some actions at the bottom, so decompression would be a time-consuming process that could take several hours. Communication equipment, safety equipment, bare necessities unless you're suicidal.

Without some kind of explanation of how they worked, it's hard to take the yacht story seriously.

I gave the documentary a watch.

Honestly, the idea that an operation of this magnitude was carried out from a sailing yacht I find unlikely, bordering on the impossible.

Performing underwater demolitions is obviously a highly specialized job. Precision navigation equipment, seabed scanning equipment, diving equipment, a crane of some sort - these are things I would expect a vessel to be capable of to be used in for this type of operation.

The documentary tackles some of the criticism, but in my opinion doesn't go into enough detail to make this unlikely story any more likely. A 100m dive is something that experienced, civilian divers can do, but the diving depth is not the extraordinary part.

The documentary also claims that the demolitions could have been done using a small amount of explosives, but the Nordstream explosions measured between 2.1 - 2.3 on the Richter Scale. So yea, obviously not a small explosion. Quite a massive one, in fact. 2.0 on the Richter Scale is equivalent to one ton of TNT.

Personally I don't believe it.

Lastly, the documentary says no one takes Hersh's story seriously. That statement reeks, because it's by far the most logical scenario to have taken place, and it is obviously SOP to have a cover story in place if the US did do it. To say 'no one takes it seriously' is typical deflection.

It sounds to me like this story was made up to deflect blame from the US. Ukraine is not a NATO ally, so Ukraine bombing Nordstream would be slightly less outrageous than the US bombing its allies' infrastructure. Maybe it was carried out by Ukrainian divers, but if that's the case it wasn't without US involvement. No way.

A while back people linked a Swedish documentary with all sorts of experts insinuating Russia was the likely culprit. So yea, I take these documentaries with a grain of salt to begin with, especially if the 'experts' are people I never heard of and will probably never hear from again.

It's quite possible the US had a Ukrainian team carry out (a part of) the operation. This would provide the US with plausible deniability. Considering the scale of the operation, I find it unlikely the Ukrainians did this completely on their own, though. Considering the impact geopolitically and the implications of bombing allied (German) infrastructure, it's almost unthinkable they did this without consulting the US.

Given that we have Seymour Hersh's story, the US incriminating a 'Ukrainian group', and of course the US incriminating itself by constantly threatening to end Nordstream if war were to break out, I think the picture is starting to come together.

I'll give that documentary a watch later. Thanks!

You've really got nothing, do you? :rofl:

The tape surfaced on February 6th 2014. Yanukovych didn't cede power until February 21st, and the worst of the violence happened on February 20th.

But nice try, I guess.

Is this all you have? Blowing smoke in the hopes people aren't well-informed enough to see through it?

Let me remind you why the Euromaidan happened - it was a reaction of Ukrainians to Russia forcing Yanukovych to renege on his promises for trade integration with the EU - this had nothing to do with NATO. — Jabberwock

Except that NATO's big daddy, the US, was directly involved in the coup.

We've even got Nuland on tape, designing the new Ukrainian government before the coup happened. :lol:

Given that it was only six years in between and NATO did not really do anything to change that perception, ... — Jabberwock

'Not really anything', except for expanding NATO by another 7 countries, and planning another 2 - Ukraine and Georgia.

NATO was fully aware what the Russians thought of this. Everybody had been since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's just revisionism that tries to sweep this away into the creases of history.

NATO expansionism had received wide-spread criticism, even from people within the administrations that carried out the policy. You can read the memoires of people like Madeline Albright or Robert Gates.

George Kennan termed NATO expansion as 'starting a new Cold War' back in 1998!

And here you are arguing the 'Russians acted unexpected and irrational'.

What can I say? It's a joke.

Maybe next time just read what you comment on. Then you would not have to complain about your own poor reading skills. Or ask what is the argument about after you comment on it. — Jabberwock

Very impressive, kiddo. :rofl:

What even is your argument? :chin:

The bottomline is your assertions are objectively untrue. We've got Washington officials going on record saying the exact opposite of what you're saying.

It is Russia's reaction that is unexpected and somewhat irrational — Jabberwock

Russia's position on Ukraine / Georgia NATO membership was known well before the 2008 Bucharest Summit, and not 'unexpected' at all. The Russian view is discussed at length in several leaked memos written by former CIA director William Burns, one of which is titled 'Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines'.

Here's are two memos from the lead up to the 2008 Summit:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW748_a.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html


It's honestly quite stunning how poorly read people here are after 511 pages of discussion.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees? — Putin, March 10, 2007, Munich

Unfortunately for some, the archives are actually loaded with proclamations like this. Not just from the Russians themselves, but from people in the Washington establishment too.

This 'head-in-sand' style approach where you hope people won't go digging through the archives to prove you wrong is getting rather tiresome.

The proponents of the theory 'it is all because of NATO expansion' are just content with stating that he suddenly in 2008 started to see Ukraine in NATO as a vital threat, while he was and is perfectly calm about the Baltics or the Scandinavian countries. They feel no need to explain that difference, even though such view is absurdly irrational. — Jabberwock

Concerns over the effects of NATO enlargement literally started as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved, so lets not play coy here.

On your second point, it's obvious why Finland and Sweden pose little threat. Do you know what the Russian-Finnish border looks like?

And let's not forget the 2004 NATO tranche, that added another 7 countries.

Because of energy dependency. In the case of nuclear energy it's more extreme than with oil and gas. I think Rosatom holds something in the range of 90% of the total market share, including all the related services (maintenance, waste disposal, etc.).

I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. — Mr Bee

It should be noted that reluctance to swap over to nuclear doesn't just come from oil and gas producers, but also the fact that the nuclear energy market is largely dominated by the Russian company Rosatom.

On a side note, the idea that Russia went to war to prevent NATO expansion into Ukraine has been (for whatever reason) a controversial topic here.

Here's what Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, said about that recently:

First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member.

Ol' Jens here saying the quiet part out loud. Russia voiced clear concerns about NATO enlargement, and what did NATO do? It doubled down. We sure showed those Russians not to tell us what to do, eh?

It's clear to me that this war was purposefully provoked.

Pre-2014, some sort of commitment to neutrality backed up by action could have probably avoided this war.

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians.

Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object.

The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible.

Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation.

EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term.


Right now it will be very difficult to come to a peace agreement, since trust between Russia and the West has been completely shattered (it should be attempted regardless).

Russia is not going to return the territories it now occupies, simply because the trust isn't there to leave Crimea in the same vulnerable situation that it was in. That was the point of their invasion. And it is unlikely Ukraine (and Washington) would agree to a peace deal that doesn't return territory.

The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine.

I miss more efforts by European institutions to let Russia be part of those. I am not asking for a full membership because I understand that Russia needs deep changes in its public administration and system, as an overall. But, again, I think that Frankfort (or Paris, depending on the context) should have made more efforts towards Russia and tried to take a more neutral position, as much as Switzerland has always done. — javi2541997

I don't think Russia would want to be part of the EU or NATO, even though such options have been explored in the past, mainly because it would entail ceding some sovereignty to Brussels (or Washington in the case of NATO).

However, economic ties had been strengthened in the period before the 2014 (and even after). Perhaps Washington felt the Russians and Europeans were in fact cozying up to each other a little too much, to such an extent that the Europeans could no longer be counted on to pick the American side if a conflict were to break out between say, the United States, China and Russia.

In this sense, I perceive that Ukraine is playing two sides: the U.S. and the European Union. When Zelensky is not able to get funding to keep fighting or has some disagreement with an EU state (such as Poland), he quickly goes to Washington; and if Republicans will the 2024 elections, he will ask for some integration in the EU. I cannot trust the behaviour of a nation like this one, and Zelensky is demanding more than Ukraine should get in real circumstances. — javi2541997

I know very little of Zelensky, and considering he had an acting career in the past it is hard to gauge whether he's acting or being genuine. But I do have some sympathy for him, and certainly for the Ukrainian people.

They've been led down the primrose path, and now they're being hung out to dry.

Being a European myself, I put a lot of blame with the weak European leadership, who should have been savvy to what the Americans were up to in Ukraine and given a clear 'no'.

My sense is that Washington's intention was to use Ukraine as a means to bind Russia in a 'forever war' while simultaneously souring Russia's relations with Europe, which in turn would benefit the US.

The reason I say this is because there are various things within Washington's behavior that simply don't make sense otherwise.

Why would they course for war for 20 years straight while refusing any meaningful dialogue with Russia? To me that implies they intentionally sought to start a conflict.

Why would they take this course, while simultaneously being unwilling to commit to a victory? There's not analyst in the world that gave Ukraine any chance of victory prior to this war. To me that implies that a military victory was never Washington's objective in the first place.

While the war is ongoing, why would they boycot a peace deal and also use diplomatic negotiations as a tool to mislead the Russians, intentionally souring the little trust that may have been there and making negotiations impossible for the foreseeable future? To me that implies Washington is not interested in a diplomatic solution to this war, and wishes for it to continue for as long as possible.

I keep giving you chances to prove you can converse like an adult, and you keep disappointing me.