Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    The red line was the actual nuclear threat, and the solution was focused on finding an agreement about the nuclear threat. Russia could have proposed the same to the US. But it didn't. — neomac

    How do you know this?

    The Russians have spoken about this red line for decades - you believe no talks happened between the United States and Russia about this situation?

    And what good are talks when the United States blatantly states it wishes to cross the mentioned red line, and supports regime change just to prove its intentions?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    They attempted all the things you named.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat. — neomac

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#U.S._Government_personnel
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So what exactly do you disagree with? — Olivier5

    Your classification of a decades old, complex geopolitical situation as "a simple landgrab", obviously.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So we agree that this is just a land grab. — Olivier5

    No, clearly we don't agree.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing. — Olivier5

    No, they were about power - like virtually ever other geopolitical decision that was ever made, western or otherwise.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? — Olivier5

    No, so why would you believe a US president when they say Ukraine is about Russian expansionism?

    Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, ... — Olivier5

    Except that these are official statements made directly in an international context on behalf of NATO, and thus on behalf of the United States, and thus reflect official policy.

    If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. — Christoffer

    Except when someone with insight into NATO and Russian affairs argues that Russia does perceive NATO expansion as a threat.

    But I suppose when expert opinions don't say what we like to hear they are better left ignored.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    After years of searching, I regret to inform that there is apparently no perfect paradise on earth. — Olivier5

    Nothing but hypocrisy. Not that I expected anything different.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5


    Constant destructive, genocidal wars all over the world, domestic human rights violations (bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, right to property, right to privacy, to name a few), utter political corruption, etc.

    That Westerners criticize the West is normal: we do it because we can, because we are free to do it. — Olivier5

    That doesn't excuse any of these things, nor does the excuse that it's worse in other places of the world, nor does it make someone who seeks to flee these things anything less than a political refugee.

    Some beautiful Western hypocrisy on display here - when other countries do it you cry for war and regime change. When the West does it, well, you can leave if you don't like it. :vomit:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I thought you as an avg Westerner were comparing your fate in the West with the fate of the refugees from non-Western country, which I find laughable. — neomac

    Yes, this is exactly your problem.

    You look at the West through pink-coloured glasses, apparently unable to acknowledge political malpractice when it is carried out by the West.

    Tell me, would you have asked poor Americans that were drafted to commit a de facto genocide in Vietnam why they didn't just flee the country if they didn't like it?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    Don't try to change the subject.

    You tried to imply that being "free" to become a political refugee means one is not being forced - a truly vile statement.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    The fact that I have lived here all my life and people should not be forced to flee their home as a result of political malpractice? Hello?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Why forced? Westerners are free to migrate to Russia, China, Iran and live there. — neomac

    Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it? Interesting logic.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So if you are a Westerner, it's a bit puzzling to see you spit on the dish where you are eating forced to eat from. — neomac
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu

    Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests.

    From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence.

    Again, not speaking in terms of good guys-bad guys, but these are just the facts, which you keep misrepresenting.
  • A definition of "evil"
    To me, the concept of evil has always been closely related to deceitfulness and lying or being untruthful to oneself or another.

    There is a category of harmful actions that we commit out of ignorance, which is seperate from evil.

    Then there is a category of harmful actions we knowingly and purposefully commit. That is evil. Such actions are always accompanied by some form of justification, which I regard as self-deceit.

    Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

    I can't believe that 360 pages into this topic people still get historical facts wrong.

    2008 NATO Bucharest Summit:

    NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Anyway, nothing new here, ... — jorndoe

    This isn't a response to what I said, so I don't know why you even bothered to repeat it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea." — Olivier5

    If that's what you believe, then how could you argue with Putin? That the United States could annihilate Russia has been a fact for well over half a century.

    So either you believe world leaders go out of their way to state the obvious, or that's not what the phrase means.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yet, Putin's Russia is the victim here? That's the ultimate conclusion? — jorndoe

    That wouldn't be my conclusion.

    However, where two nations fight over influence in Ukraine, I see them both as part of the cause, and I am not buying any narrative that ignores the significant American role in this conflict.


    On the topic of the "existential threat"-rhetoric by Russia, I think you're not catching the meaning of that phrase.

    When a nation uses that term, they're not saying that their nation will cease to exist.
    If Ukraine were to become NATO, Russia would not cease to exist. If the Soviets managed to station nuclear missiles on Cuba, the United States would not cease to exist, If somehow a nation were to blockade the entire Chinese coastline, China would not cease to exist, etc.

    What those things will do however, is put those nations in a permanent state of strategic vulnerability. The term "existential threat" is international code language for saying "You are threatening my core strategic interests, (and I will protect those with nuclear weapons.)"
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Putin is a problem for the West beyond this war and the criminal annexations of Ukrainian territories. The authoritarian turn of his regime to grant concentration of power in his hands, the Russian growing military presence in the Mediterranean area (also through the Black Sea), in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Baltic sea (encircling Europe), Russian attempts to corrupt the democratic life in Western countries (from state cyberwar to financing western politicians), Russian attempts to economically blackmail the West by compromising the trade of critical commodities (e.g. gas and wheat), Putin's nuclear threats, Putin's declared goal to challenge Western hegemony and his attempts to build an alliance with other countries to antagonise the West, all these facts justify the Western intervention in Ukraine. — neomac

    The irony in this is that a large part of the world views the United States in exactly the same light.

    Everything you list here the United States has done before and on a larger scale, and that includes nuclear threats.

    Are nations 'justified' (whatever that may mean) to intervene whenever the United States engages in similar behavior?

    Of course they can't, because the United States is the biggest bully of them all, but I am still curious if you're willing to follow through, or prefer to hang onto a double standard.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪jorndoe
    Russia is far from a perfect nation. So are the United States. I don't see any justification for the cartoonish super villain role the Russians been assigned in western narratives. Such labels only work to bias the mind.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Tzeentch
    , returning to your comment and my followup, did you then confirm/deny any of this...?     — jorndoe

    None of it seems all that relevant to me, but if you want to hear my thoughts anyway:

    no love lost if Putin's Russia was to remain more of a regional power than a superpower (e.g. without annexations) — jorndoe

    Sounds like a value judgement to me, which aren't very useful when trying to understand a political situation. What does it matter what you and I want? It has no impact on what is happening and why it is happening.

    straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — here "distrusting" might be too mild a word — from what we've heard/seen, Putin is forcing it, little reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs lacking

    Sure.

    Why would Russia be special in that regard? Isn't there distrust of the United States, or China? I don't see Russia as a nation that behaves particularly terribly when compared to others. The United States takes the cake for being the most destructively meddling nation in recent history. Unprovoked invasions, de facto genocides and indiscriminate killing, sowing chaos and destruction, we've seen it all before under the American flag, so I'm just not buying your one-sided "Russia bad" narrative.

    And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

    ↑ Fear-mongering an alleged existential threat, that instead proved an existential threat to Ukraine, then, depending on the Ukrainian situation, subsequently Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia     — jorndoe

    The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. Now they've started a war over it, just like they said they would. At some point maybe you'll have to accept that they were serious when they said that, and instead of more "Russia bad", try to understand why Ukraine is so important to Russia that they were willing to start a war over it.

    But honestly, it doesn't seem like your point of view allows for a rational analysis. You seem to desire a black and white picture of good guys and bad guys, and the western propaganda narrative delivers it to you.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    your comment has that faint whiff of nefarious conspiracy theory. — jorndoe

    Sounds like your issue is that you're only able to look at this conflict through a western lens, which might be why the idea of the US actively working to keep its competitors weak sounds like a "conspiracy" to you.

    Stop being naive. The US is as cut-throat as any other nation - in terms of recent history it may be the most destructive nation on the planet.

    For example, it's more straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — jorndoe

    Sure. But how strange that they were all holding hands and singing praises before 2008. What changed, huh?

    Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO? — jorndoe

    NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this.

    What I find lacking in this discussion is the wider context. We're only looking at what is happening today, even though today's events are a direct result of things that happened 12 years ago.

    Things changed after in 2008 NATO stated they wanted to incorporate Ukraine, which means NATO took the first step in changing Ukraine's neutral status. This both threatened to remove the buffer between NATO and Russia and Russia's access to Sevastopol

    2013 was the point of no return, when the US showed it was willing to support regime change in Ukraine in order to reach its goals.

    I do say this with the power of hindsight, but war was unavoidable from that point onward.

    All the narratives, war rhetoric and propaganda is just nonsense to influence the public.

    A neutral Ukraine, again? What happened to that? — jorndoe

    Ask the Americans.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. — ssu

    Before 2008 Putin was lauded internationally as a great, reasonable leader with whom the West could do business and form partnerships, etc.

    Things were looking very good. A little too good for the Americans' taste, in fact.

    Can't have their European vassals getting cozy with a potential future peer competitor, can we? Heartland theory and all that.

    That's why they tried to ensure Russia could never rise to great power status again - by slowly encroaching on its former sphere of influence, eventually going a bridge too far with Georgia and Ukraine.

    Ukraine was the big one, with Russia's influence in the Middle-East depending for a significant part on their access to the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

    It might be worth pointing out that there is a potential link between the United States' failure in the Middle-East, Russia's likely involvement, and the United States' bid for Ukraine.
  • The Unholy Love Affair Between The Corporate and Political Elite
    ↪Bitter Crank
    Well, yes. Nothing new under the sun there.

    However, this video gives a lot of insights into the mechanisms of how that works. How economic policy that benefits countries and normal people does not benefit the powers that be, and vice versa.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat… — Deus

    No one sane is even considering an invasion of Russia. The last time a nation thought Russia was weak enough to invade, it didn't end so well. The difference now is that back then it was a neighboring country, and today it would be the United States who is several thousand miles and an ocean away.

    China would be the laughing third.


    Also, does anyone on this forum truly believe the United States cares enough about Ukraine to invade Russia or risk nuclear war?

    I have sad news (and I am not being facetious - I truly think this is tragic), the United States does not care about Ukraine. It cares about the political objectives it can achieve through sacrificing Ukraine in a similar vein as it did with Vietnam.

    During all of the Cold War it wasn't even clear whether the United States would respond with nuclear weapons in the case of a full-scale Soviet invasion of Europe.
  • The Unholy Love Affair Between The Corporate and Political Elite
    ↪0 thru 9
    In a nutshell, it is about a report done by an analyst at BlackRock in which they predict the next financial crisis (the one we're about to be in now) even before covid, and discuss how to combat it in a way by which the corporate and political elite suffer the least, and the common man is made to bear the cost, mostly through limitless money printing - eerily similar to what we're seeing today.

    The video is already a summary, so I don't care to summarize it even more, and I am also not an economist so I wouldn't do a great job at it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ... only Crimea and Donbas were significant to Russian security concerns right? — neomac

    Those are not the words I would use, but it's clear that southern Ukraine has been Russia's primary concern since 2013, and probably will be for a long time to come.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Then there is no way to downplay the importance of having Sweden and Finland in NATO as Putin tried to do. — neomac

    The Scandinavian countries have been part of mutual defense agreements for over a decade, so what exactly do you believe has changed that would make this so significant?

    As much as Sweden and Finland only become a problem as a result of NATO expansion. — neomac

    What I tried to make clear to you is that the poor position of Russia in the Baltic Sea is a fact with or without Sweden and Finland, and as such, whether they're part of NATO or not isn't a major factor in anything.

    Likely the Russians have been downplaying it because it was in the line of expectations.

    The more you nuance or rephrase the Russians' stated reasons and objectives to match what Russians could actually achieve so far, the more overblown the Russian (or anti-NATO) propaganda sounds. — neomac

    I don't know what else you'd expect from propaganda. My advice would be, don't watch it, whether it's Russian or western propaganda.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    However correct, your argument is far from being conclusive... — neomac

    Just so we're clear, I don't pretend to have conclusive arguments. Observers like us are probably only seeing half the picture, and the best we can do is make educated guesses.

    1. if Crimea was the issue, Russia could have clearly stated that the problem is not NATO expansion, but the control over Crimea. — neomac

    Crimea only becomes a problem as a result of NATO expansion. With a neutral Ukraine, there is no threat of Crimea being cut off, since they'd have to be crazy to try it.

    With Ukraine in NATO however, Ukraine becomes a potential pawn in a NATO-Russia power struggle.

    As I stated in my last reply to you, NATO expansion in general is an issue to Russia. How could it not be? It is essentially an anti-Russian alliance.

    2. Finland and Sweden inside NATO and militarisation are relevant for the control of the Baltic Sea which is of unquestionable strategic importance. — neomac

    Strategically, economically and geopolitically, yes.

    However the Russian position in the Baltic Sea is extremely fragile in case of war. The Gulf of Finland, and especially the Danish straits are too easily blocked, which is why any breakout into the Atlantic has historically been planned through the Norwegian Sea and the GIUK-gap. This is also why the main naval base of the Northern Fleet is located in Severomorsk (and not for example St. Petersburg or Kaliningrad).

    In other words, in a military conflict with NATO, the Baltic Sea would play a secondary role. NATO's position there is simply too dominant.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪apokrisis
    You've been mouthing off a little too much.

    We'll continue our conversation as soon as you elaborate on your ideas about cruise missile SEAD strikes.

    Take the stage, bud. We're all ears.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It's honestly bizarre your insistence on Russian military incompetence. — boethius

    I believe this issue stems from something I've tried to address before.

    It seems a lot of western military experts had a terribly inflated view of the Russian military prior to the invasion. Western academic sources were linked in this thread, claiming Ukraine would stand no chance and that Kiev would fall in a matter of hours.

    Probably these sources also underestimated the extent of military aid that Ukraine has received from the United States, turning their military into a respectable force.


    If one assumes the invasion would be a one-sided landslide and then sees the Russian military having to fight for every region they occupy, then one may easily chalk that up to Russian incompetence, instead of reconsidering their own conception of the balance of power.


    Even as the actual situation began to unfold, western analysts in their analysis of Russian actions implicitly assumed that the Kremlin shared their inflated view of the Russian military. That's why they assume the Russians went into this war intending to invade all of Ukraine, conquering Kiev, etc.

    What we know of the Russian force composition and their actions to date seems to imply the opposite. That the Russians aimed for a limited war with the south of Ukraine as its initial goal.

    US support for Ukraine has been official US policy since at least January of 2021. Covert support has probably started around the invasion of Crimea. The Russians knew they were going up against a US trained, US armed force, yet they started the war outnumbered by roughly ~50,000 men. That speaks volumes. 200,000 men are not going to occupy all of Ukraine fighting outnumbered against a capable opponent, nor did they have the manpower to spare to occupy and hold Kiev while simultaneously securing strategic areas in the south.

    Further, the fact that they managed to go on the offensive while outnumbered implies that they are not incompetent. To state as much would be a harsh insult to the Ukrainian military. After all, if the Russians are so incompetent then why weren't the Ukrainian forces able to defend against them when they had a numerical superiority on the battlefield?


    These are simple, rational arguments based on contemporary military logic, in light of which much of the popular narratives can be dismissed outright.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And if NATO expansion in Sweden or Finland is not a problem, neither should have been NATO expanding in Ukraine. — neomac

    Well, NATO expanding into Sweden and Finland probably is a problem for the Russians. The only way they can interpret it is as a decidedly anti-Russian move. But they weren't in any position to object.

    Further, the difference between Sweden, Finland and Ukraine should be obvious. Sweden and Finland have no strategic relevance to Russia at all, while Ukraine is the most important region for Russia outside of Russia proper.

    Sweden and Finland joining NATO is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move. Why would they accept US vassalage when the Russians aren't interested in Finland or Sweden at all?

    Europe now sees what it means to let the United States dictate their foreign military policy. Russia's invasion is a direct response to US meddling on Europe's doorstep. The US is now exchanging nuclear rhetoric with Russia, with Europe as its pawns. What a time to be part of NATO.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You are so funny. Making shit up off the top of your head. Read and weep…. — apokrisis

    You believe this is evidence?

    Apparently you do not understand what constitutes evidence. But since I would not wish to wrongfully dismiss your story, I did an actual search for the evidence myself. (Next time, be a good lad and don't make me do work that you should be doing to support your arguments)

    The 18 IL-76 story seems to be based on a Twitter message. This Twitter message. In which a journalist supposedly cites (no actual citation is produced) UKRAINIAN government sources.

    No evidence is produced here. Just a Twitter message full of completely inverifiable claims, made by potentially highly biased sources.


    Also, where is that explanation of cruise missile SEAD strikes?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just bomb it if you need to deny its use. — apokrisis

    As if bombing things is the only way to deny the enemy. :brow:

    Besides, we've already established that airfields are important strategic targets. Why bomb things you may need later? We're talking literally the first day of the invasion here - no one knew what course the war would take.

    Your story was there was no intended future use at all. — apokrisis

    Incorrect. I had no story at all.

    I challenged your story that the Russian attempt to secure an airfield somehow proved the Russian intentions towards Kiev - something for which you haven't provided a shred of evidence.

    You attempted to support that position by claiming they were going to airlift BTG's by plane, which is absurd.

    That's what I've argued.

    Kyiv was a ruse to fix Ukrainian forces who might otherwise head for the Donbas. — apokrisis

    And how does such a task exclude the taking of airfields?

    I've also mentioned that the drive on Kiev had a different primary purpose, and that it's secondary purpose may have been a feint.

    So why would Russia fly crack paratroopers to the front line with the very important job of protecting a transport airfield so no one with bombs might decide to hurt it. — apokrisis

    And how do you suppose paratroopers would stop bombs from being dropped on the airfield?


    Also, why don't you answer some of the dozens of questions I have asked you and you have never answered?

    How were you going to take out all of those MANPADS, IR AA and mobile AAA batteries with GPS-guided cruise missiles again?

    Your claims of military expertise are just so laughable. — apokrisis

    Weren't you about to land 20 cargo planes in the crosshairs of enemy AA claiming they had "flares and electronic countermeasures" supposedly showing they had "some chance of landing"?

    I'm sure the optically guided AAA batteries would have enjoyed the fireworks. :rofl:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What is the military value of taking some random airfield and ringing it with troop protection? — apokrisis

    Denying its use to the enemy, securing it for future use, etc.

    The issue is, airfields are incredibly important in war, and any occupying force would prioritize securing these, regardless of their future intentions. Not in the least part because the Russians during this time probably did not know exactly how the war would proceed.


    Also, what would air assault troops be using an airfield for? Landing helicopters perhaps? Small, low-flying, the types of which could operate more closely to the frontline?

    Sounds a lot more plausible to me.

    Only “obvious” to you for some reason. — apokrisis

    The fact you don't land cargo planes carrying battalions worth of troops under the enemy's AA umbrella should be obvious to anyone with a shred of sense.

    Then why does every media report find the airbridge story to be plausible? — apokrisis

    Because they're clueless or propagandists, or possibly both.

    No one rules out the talk of establishing an early airbridge as “impossible” due to AA defences, just risky ... — apokrisis

    Not risky - suicide.

    Remember those big, slow-flying silhouettes in the air, the last time you drove past an airfield?

    Now imagine you're a Ukrainian sitting on a mobile AAA platform that fires at ~4500 rpm like this one: 2K22 Tunguska, looking at 18-20 of these fifty-year-old unarmored piñatas, filled to the brim with troops and equipment.

    So we continue to have the mystery of why secure a working airbridge ... — apokrisis

    There is no mystery. They didn't intend to create an airbridge to fly in cargo planes. If any "airbridge" was intended, it could for example have been to supply (BY HELICOPTER) the air assault forces in follow-up operations.

    ... your persistent refusal to answer that question directly. — apokrisis

    I'll chalk that up to your persistent refusal to read my posts then. :ok:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪frank
    The United States have expressed their desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO at the Bucharest Summit in 2008. In 2013-2014 the Maidan revolution took place in Ukraine, showing the Russians that a pro-Western flip of Ukraine was a real threat. The Russians responded by taking their primary strategic asset, Crimea, by force in 2014.

    After 2014, it was clear that the situation with Ukraine's neutrality being at odds and Crimea being cut-off from Russia was not a long-term solution, and that war was looming.

    In light of that, the United States started to support Ukraine financially and militarily, furthering the threat of a pro-Western flip.

    At least since January 2021 U.S. support for Ukraine became official policy; U.S. Security Coorporation with Ukraine


    It was a matter of time before Ukraine was armed and trained to such a degree that would make a limited war for southern Ukraine unfeasible, and even moreso the threat of Ukraine joining NATO, which would have made any invasion pretty much impossible.
Home » Tzeentch