[B0ycey]

Why? First of all, the occupied areas aren't the only Russian-speaking areas in the Ukraine. Second, Ukraine controlled these areas for a long time without issues and 2014 wasn't the first color revolution.

The question is, do the pro-West factions in the Ukraine even want them back? After all a lot of Russia-friendly voters were removed from the picture by the occupation.

I would say Keiv want them back or they wouldn't even be fighting for them now.

Besides a lot has happened since 2014. Before 2014 Ukraine was an ally with Russia, so why would Crimea play up and rebel against authority back then? Today they have had a referendum and Russia is backing their rebellion. So they aren't going to turn and be pro West if Ukraine beat them back and then have to control them. Not that Ukraine can beat them back of course. Russia is at the border so the Ukraine forces are impotent at the moment respecting the ceasefire.

So yeah Rugoz, given both sides are playing with pawns at the moment, without diplomacy how do you think this conflict can end right now?

[Rugoz]

I would say Keiv want them back or they wouldn't even be fighting for them now.

Well obviously they have to pretend to want them back, everything else would invite further incursions. I admit that's pure conjecture from my part.

Besides a lot has happened since 2014. Before 2014 Ukraine was an ally with Russia, so why would Crimea play up and rebel against authority back then? Today they have had a referendum and Russia is backing their rebellion. So they aren't going to turn and be pro West if Ukraine beat them back and then have to control them. Not that Ukraine can beat them back of course. Russia is at the border so the Ukraine forces are impotent at the moment respecting the ceasefire.

Eh..remember the Orange revolution? Yushchenko (the guy who was poisoned) was president from 2005 to 2010. Hardly an ally of Russia. The "rebellion" really didn't exist until Russia staged it. That said, things might be different after all the fighting.

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey

The specific area that is being contested is pro Russian. Which means fighting to retain this territory is pointless. You can hid behind chartered borders, legality, conventions, sovereignty, free passes whatever the fuck you like. Even if Ukraine managed to take back Donbass/Crimea they wouldn't be able to control it. Everyone know this. Even America. Which means if they insist on supplying weapons they might not be all the problem but certainly are part of the problem nonetheless. Because if Ukraine wasn't being supplied with weapons they would have to have started talks with Russia by now (something you previously asked for) as they would have no other choice and a solution would have been found so this war would be over. America profit from weapons. They also don't like Russia gaining a strategic geopolitical advange. Russia want to control Crimea. Neither side really cares about the current stalemate. The only people who are losing here is Ukraine. I think they still cling on the hope of NATO membership which they will not get. If it wasn't for that, again I think they would be forced to find a diplomatic solution by now as well. So...

Pro Russian or not, that still doesn't change the fact that is Ukrainian territory. Not Russian. If the inhabitants are that pro-Russian, the inhabitants should renounce their Ukrainian citizenship, move to Russia and apply for Russian citizenship and live in Russia. The fact of the matter of is, as @Rugoz pointed out in his previous point, this whole thing was orchestrated by the government of Russia itself and there were not problems until Russian went into Ukraine and orchestrated all of this. The ethnic Russians and Ukrainians for all intents and purposes seemed to be getting along just fine before Russia decided to go into Ukraine itself and create the trouble.

You shouldn't allow your biased anti-Americanism to prevent you from the seeing the reality of the situation. This isn't all about money or making weapons manufacturers money. This is about national security and survival too for Ukraine and the United States. Russia didn't have to invade Ukraine to assure it's own security. There were smarter and better ways for them to do so. But they made their own choices so the United States and Ukraine has to assure it's own security from a hostile Russia. We are not interested in a war but we also have to protect ourselves from a hostile Russia. The problem in this whole equation is Putin that is creating this whole situation for the average joes in Ukraine and Russia. It isn't the United States. The common denominator here is Putin. It's going to be the average Russian and the average Ukrainian that pays the price. Not the United States. And it's because of the choices that Putin makes. We aren't making anybody do anything.

[Unthinking Majority]

Testing Biden. Tested Obama and won.

[B0ycey]

Pro Russian or not, that still doesn't change the fact that is Ukrainian territory. Not Russian. If the inhabitants are that pro-Russian, the inhabitants should renounce their Ukrainian citizenship, move to Russia and apply for Russian citizenship and live in Russia. The fact of the matter of is, as @Rugoz pointed out in his previous point, this whole thing was orchestrated by the government of Russia itself and there were not problems until Russian went into Ukraine and orchestrated all of this. The ethnic Russians and Ukrainians for all intents and purposes seemed to be getting along just fine before Russia decided to go into Ukraine itself and create the trouble.

You shouldn't allow your biased anti-Americanism to prevent you from the seeing the reality of the situation. This isn't all about money or making weapons manufacturers money. This is about national security and survival too for Ukraine and the United States. Russia didn't have to invade Ukraine to assure it's own security. There were smarter and better ways for them to do so. But they made their own choices so the United States and Ukraine has to assure it's own security from a hostile Russia. We are not interested in a war but we also have to protect ourselves from a hostile Russia. The problem in this whole equation is Putin that is creating this whole situation for the average joes in Ukraine and Russia. It isn't the United States. The common denominator here is Putin. It's going to be the average Russian and the average Ukrainian that pays the price. Not the United States. And it's because of the choices that Putin makes. We aren't making anybody do anything.

Yeah, I can see your point. When America asked for Assad to leave what they should have done instead was give citizenship to all the Syrians who renounced his regime instead and they shouldn't have occupied Syria at all... oh sorry, we were talking about Ukraine weren't we? Well Ukraine is in a state of civil war where the rebels are being supported by Russia and not part of their army. In other words Ukraine is fighting amongst themselves. Russia remains at the border. I thought that was pretty clear by the title of the thread.

As for biased, I am more pro American than what you read on this forum actually. But perhaps it is more about me trying to impartial when these threads come up because we at the West are not always right in our actions. In other words I like American people just not your geopolitics FYI. So when I mention these things, they aren't really to support Russia and be anti West I want you to understand that. These events are more complicated than picking sides anyway. Because I have told you that rightly or wrongly that Russia will not give up Crimea because of this strategic location. I have told you that many Ukrainians who live in Donbass support Russia. So it then becomes a debate of do you allow people to have self determination of the lands they occupy or maintain international borders despite of those peoples wishes?

I don't really have an opinion on this FYI, all I am doing is explaining the Russians POV and as such why we have this stalemate. You talk as if America is doing something in this war but all they are doing is making money off it. They aren't interested in sending in troops or allowing Ukraine into NATO because that will likely end in World War. And Russia are just maintaining the buffer so the focus is off Crimea. Both sides are more than happy to keep the status quo and the only losers here are Ukraine. And whilst America keeps on supplying weapons, there is no incentive for Ukraine to start talks with Russia and this war continues for a little longer. That is all I am saying.

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey

I never said the the West is always right. But on the same token, the West isn't always wrong either. Ukraine has been trying to talk to Putin but Putin doesn't want to talk, he wants to keep massing troops on the border. He is the one who wants to fight.

The Ukrainian President at least visits his troops on the front lines. That is what a President should do when his troops are at war. These Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines have been telling their President they want and need more money and weapons from Washington:

If Putin has competent generals advising him, I am assuming their advice to him would be not to invade Ukraine because of the risks involved. However, political leaders do not always listen to their generals and generals are bound to obey the orders of their political masters. I think part of the reason Putin might invade Ukraine could be to distract from domestic issues at home so that he can stay in power. But it's unfortunate as the average Russian and Ukrainian will be the ones who pay the price.

[Juin]

@Juin

Here is a lecture given by a Professor knowledgeable on U.S. National Security matters. He says he has been to Ukraine about 30 times learning as much as he can about the Ukraine conflict. He spent time with the Ukrainian troops on the front. The guy says he got some Russian shrapnel in him from his time at the front and he says he served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Here is a lecture he gives at West Point which is the official U.S. Military Academy.

On Sunday I was able to watch the lecture on youtube by Dr Philip Karber. And another video as well, since another lecture of his rolled up after the one you posted finishted.

I dont know whether Dr Karber is primarily pro Ukrainian, or primarily anti Russian. Or his reasons for his orientations. Or if there is any scenario where he can find Ukraine in the wrong and Russian in the right. Which led me to ponder: what if Ukraine had a squabble with say Turkey, what side would he come down on? My suspicion is that the Dr is likely to come down on Ukraine's side. I conclude that his view is guided by who are America's strategic adversaries.

I also had difficulty with the lectures. Mind you this was a lecture to West Point, as you pointed out. The Dr's was a discussion of modern weapon systems and their best tactical use at the field level. That is not stuff for folks like me. I am quite proud of my service as a cub scout as a kid. I even rose to patrol leader rank. And mastered morse code. But all that was no enough to really get me up to speed with Dr Karber's lectures on Russian weapon systems and their tactical deployment. It also left me wondering if you have a military background, as the lecture appeared to me designed for people who when they see a tank, see more than just canon and tracks.

[blackjack21]

There were plenty of times where we tried to reset relations with the Russia on friendly terms and the Russians rejected it.

With the mindset of an enlisted guy, you won't understand the Russian military mindset until you read something like Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World. I finished it a month or so ago. FWIW, I also finished Revenge of Georgraphy recently too.

“As Napoleon said, to know a nation's geography is to know its foreign policy”

Basically, Russia's geography invites invasion. It has no territorial barriers to prevent invasion from the West. It was Russian winters and the inability to sustain very long supply lines that saved Russia from Napolean, Enver Pasha and Hitler. The Russian military leadership is paranoid of invasion, and if you look at their geography and their history, you would understand that readily.

The Russians have no interest in taking Ukraine.

A good part of the Soviet military industrial complex was in Eastern Ukraine.

This is a quarrel between Russia and Ukraine, two nations which are thousands of miles away from the USA, on a completely different continent. Why do you feel you have the right to intervene on one side or the other?

They feel they have the right for the same reason that the French and British--longstanding rivals--decided to join forces and fight against the Russians in Crimea. The Ukrainian flag is basically yellow wheat fields and blue sky. It was the bread basket of the Soviet Union, and an important part of the Soviet military industrial complex. US geostrategy would be about undermining the rise of a peer competitor. Hence, it would seek Ukraine to be independent of Russia.

You seriously don't believe that the Russians hacked our elections?

I don't think Biden won legitimately, but I don't think the Russians had anything to do with it.

They helped an idiot like Trump get into power here in the US and wreck havoc on our democracy.

They didn't turn a single vote to Trump according to the bureaucracy. Additionally, Russian oligarchs had significant ties to the Clintons.

We are lucky that Trump, with the help of the Russians, didn't destroy our democracy and become a dictator.

Our so-called democracy is being destroyed by governors usurping emergency powers with respect to covid. Trump scarcely used emergency powers until covid, and when he did it was to accelerate vaccine development--which he was told would take four years.

We have every reason to help the Ukrainians and we would be foolish not to help the Ukrainians in light of Russia's actions against the U.S. and the very serious threat they have demonstrated with their actions that they pose to our democracy by interfering in our elections and nearly helping Trump to destroy our democracy and make him dictator. Ohh no, we need to help the Ukrainians.

Well before Trump was on the political radar, the US undermined a duly elected Ukrainian government that was more sympathetic to Moscow than to the EU.

Plus we can tie down Russian forces in Ukraine to where they don't make trouble for us elsewhere, we can force them to spend more money out of their economy to keep their gains in Ukraine which then that money doesn't go towards modernizing their military to pose an even greater threat to us.

The Russian military is not a threat to the US military. The US military footprint is superior to the Russian footprint in almost every way.

The sanctimony of the American liberal will never stop being hilarious. You might want to do five minutes of reading on America's attitude to democracy in countries that happen to vote the wrong way. Indeed, spend five minutes reading about what America has got up to in Russia and eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, before playing the victim.

Not too many people understand the deep state and their historical actions.

Russia is run by a one-man fascist dictatorship who meddled inside Ukrainian politics to prevent the Ukrainians from making a trade agreement with the EU. You have never offered a justification for these extremely pathetic actions on behalf of Russia.

Russia's military strategists have made that clear from the fall of the Soviet Union--that Ukraine was off the table. I understand NATO expansion to Poland, but they pushed it right up to the Baltics. They were even considering making Georgia a NATO member, which is when Medvedev embarrassed the Bush administration by invading Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "liberators."

Why does Russia has an issue with Ukrainians doing business and travelling in the EU?

They don't. They have a problem with Ukraine moving toward becoming an EU member state and/or a NATO member. The Russians viewed a trade agreement as a precursor to that objective.

It's obvious that the Russians managed for a brief period of time to change the narrative inside the US.

Russiagate was a Hillary Clinton psyop carried out by her allies in the deep state. Russia had nothing to do with the Trump 2016 campaign, even by Mueller's own admission.

Lots of Republicans even inside PoFo became Russian apologists @blackjack21 being one of the most prominent.

First, I am not a Republican and haven't been since 2006. In the early 2000s, I was an ardent Bush supporter but saw serious flaws in his foreign policy. I didn't agree with many of his domestic policies. I ended up leaving the Republicans because of McCain-Kennedy--i.e., the establishment siding with human trafficking and de facto peonage. However, it was not before I said that nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan meant we could not fight a two front war, and that Russia and China could take advantage. Putin did.

You tend to misread me a lot. When I was a Bush supporter, George Friedman closed down his message board at Stratfor when I said I thought he was wrong about the US needing the 4th ID in Turkey to stage an invasion of Iraq. His retort to me was that "logistics is not a stock on NASDAQ." The US did succeed in its invasion of Iraq, and we didn't need a huge airpower campaign or the 4th ID to get it done. For that, I was called everything in the book: imperialist, facist, Nazi, war monger, etc. I was just calling it like I saw it.

When Obama scuttled his Benghazi mission and went on a fundraiser the next day, that's when I said that China and Russia would read that as weakness. For that, I was called racist for criticizing Obama and pro-China and pro-Russia. I was just calling it like I saw it. Just like Bush, Russia was able to best American geo-strategists, because they had nothing left with which to threaten Russia other than sanctions or nuclear weapons. Similarly, China began building military islands in the Spratly islands.

Since when do you remember Republicans aping for Putin and Russia?

People like me have a long history of being anti-communist--not anti-Russian. There is a huge difference.

Some of the trauma the Ukrainian soldiers have had to endure has been pretty severe. The thermobaric weapons the Russians employed against the Ukrainians were particularly insidious. One Ukrainian soldier interviewed stated one of his fellow comrades literally got burned to the bone and was begging him to shoot him to put him out of his misery. That's some serious trauma.

Thermobaric weapons have a long history, including the Nazis and the Soviets. The US developed them post haste for use in the Global War on Terror, using them against Al Qaeda. We also developed the AGM-114N Hellfire II to that end. Yes, they are insidious weapons, but it's nothing the US hasn't done very recently. Obama was very fond of Hellfire missiles launched from drones.

Russia is currently illegally occupying large parts of the Ukraine.

You are quite right about this. The counter to these arguments is that Russia's adversaries--namely the United States--cannot make a moral argument against this when the US is illegally occupying large parts of Syria. We're left with realpolitik now, like it or not.

And neither of those 2 points were part of Politics_Observer's argument which you quoted when you denied that Russian bots played a huge part in the narrative during the US elections.

They would have played little or no part without media complicity.

Dude we have learned A LOT. It's in our interest to continue supplying the Ukrainians with weapons and money and the intel we get in return is a treasure trove, plus, keeping some of Russia's forces tied down in Ukraine or more focused on Ukraine if Crimea and Donbass is threatened.

Sure it's in the American interest to support Ukraine against Russia. However, destabilizing a region is not without consequences as the Iraq War demonstrated.

Russia would of course accept that. We wouldn't.

This is similar with the US supporting independence in Kosovo, which the Russians did not accept happily. Or further afield, the US supporting the separate state of South Sudan. Again, this is the problem with trying to make foreign policy about morals while ignoring antecedent positions that reflect the same objectives used by a new adversary.

Both sides violated the ceasefire almost every weak since the ceasefire was signed. Nobody really cared till now for some reason.

Nobody in the Russian military hierarchy believed Trump was a war monger. Biden, while his faculties are in question, is politically supported/controlled by the neoliberal/neoconservative types who have a well earned reputation for the liberal use of military force.

It is definitely not a game. Russia still has nukes. That in itself calls for caution.

Yes, but they aren't likely to use them on other slavs.

Afterall, China is transitioning away from communism without collapsing like Russia.

Not collapsing yet... Chinese aggression probably masks internal division.

And lots of poaching at Russia's expense went on. Nato/EU crept further and further east. Closer and closer to Russia.

That's the problem at hand. It's not just a problem for Russia either. It's a problem for NATO. It makes sense to fight a war to defend Poland. Does it make sense to wage World War III for Estonia, Macedonia, etc.? Much of NATO expansion has been a really dumb idea. There is nothing North Atlantic about Georgia, for example.

It would have been political malpractice if Nato/EU had sat on its haunches and done nothing.

Maybe economically, but read Prisoners of Geography. Our military leaders should have known instantly that pushing NATO further and further East would spawn a reaction.

That is a lot of gain at little cost.

It is much more likely that further gains will no be at little or no cost.

Well, it hasn't been at a cost of military counter attack or economic privation. However, it has shown NATO to be something of a paper tiger with respect to the invasion of Georgia, just as the situation in Syria is also demonstrating the problems with NATO.

If Ukrainians, as a minority under Russian domination, are entitled to their own independence, then why should Russian minorities under Ukrainian domination not also have the right to independence?

This is the problem with pushing a moral-based foreign policy. The US already took such a position with respect to Kosovo and South Sudan. So it's hard to press an alternate position as a moral stance now.

Putting Russian nuclear warheads near the US was never going to happen and it didn't happen.

US intelligence concluded that Cuba was building facilities for Russian medium-range ICBMs. They were not deployed, because of the Cuban Missile crisis. The US blockaded Cuba (which is an act of war).

Ukraine entering into NATO is not a threat to Russia, in any conceivable way.

I'm sure Russian military leadership disagrees with that assertion.

EU and US will have no choice in this regard. Perhaps even full oil and gas embargo.

Things appear to be going the other way. Nord Stream 2 is coming online shortly. Europe gets a lot of natural gas from Russia. Where do you propose they would get it if they embargoed Russian gas?

I don't see where it was in our interests to invade Iraq and topple Saddam even if Saddam was an evil bastard.

The US could not guarantee the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait without troops in the region. Bin Laden's demand was that US troops leave Saudi Arabian soil. To comply with that request, the US needed to take out Saddam Hussein's regime. Military leadership looks at capabilities and past deeds. Iraq did invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia under Hussein, so it was thought he would do so again.

Had the Russians not demonstrated to be a threat to the U.S. with their past actions, you might have a legitimate point.

How are the Russians a threat to the US?

The fact of the matter of is, as @Rugoz pointed out in his previous point, this whole thing was orchestrated by the government of Russia itself and there were not problems until Russian went into Ukraine and orchestrated all of this.

Russia routinely warned the West about NATO encroachment. The invasion of Georgia should have been a clue. What was the point of inviting Georgia into NATO? They aren't a North Atlantic country by any stretch of the imagination.

Russia didn't have to invade Ukraine to assure it's own security.

Russia needs Sevastopol, because it is a warm water port.

The common denominator here is Putin.

Borders and geography determine much of foreign and military policy. Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Ivan the Terrible, etc. would all have done the same thing as Putin. Replace Putin and you will still have the same policy, because you have the same geography.

[Juin]

@B0ycey

If Putin has competent generals advising him, I am assuming their advice to him would be not to invade Ukraine because of the risks involved. However, political leaders do not always listen to their generals and generals are bound to obey the orders of their political masters. I think part of the reason Putin might invade Ukraine could be to distract from domestic issues at home so that he can stay in power. But it's unfortunate as the average Russian and Ukrainian will be the ones who pay the price.

I will try to present how I would see the broad picture if I were a Russian General. [Mind you, I am not saying that I am approving Russian success, just how a Russian may see the strategic picuture.]

1. From a Russian's point of view the frontlines with Nato was at the East German frontier at the time the Soviet Union collapsed. The understanding at the time between the American and Soviet [for all intents and purposes Russian] was that Nato will not take advantage of the collapse to push eastwards.

2. The Clinton years saw quite a push by Nato east, as far as the Baltics. Mind you that this was not without Russian protestations. It was pointed out to Russia that it should be up to the applicants to decide who they should ally with.

3. The latest Nato/Eu project in the Putin era targeted Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan as potential members of Nato/Eu.

That latest project [3] is now practically dead only because Putin aggressively reacted in 2014 by seizing Crimea and placing a choke on Donbass.


Lets say Putin did not act aggressively to draw the line in 2014, what would have stopped Nato bases down the road in Donbass, and Sevastopol a Nato Naval port?

Mind you that before Putin acted decisively to seize Crimea, Kiev already saw itself in Nato and was simply discussing how long she would allow Russian lease of Sevastopol before sending them packing.

It seems to me like Putin did effectively stop Nato presence in Ukraine and Georgia

[Politics_Observer]

@Juin

You are ignoring a very important factor here. Russia drives these countries towards NATO. These countries come to NATO seeking protection from an aggressive Russia. Russia drives them to NATO. If you don't want NATO at your border, then stop driving countries to NATO. Start treating them as friends instead of enemies and Russia won't have to worry about NATO at their borders.

Give these countries a reason, other than the threat of force and subjugation, to actually genuinely want to have good relations with Russia and not feel threatened by Russia nor feel the need to join NATO. They come to NATO because they feel a need to join NATO. Why is this? The Russians just basically want to tell these countries what to do and if they don't do it they just invade them and subjugate them and that's what drives NATO membership to their borders.

They help to create this situation they find themselves in. Maybe they should start being more friendly towards other countries in the region. That would help them a lot. Hacking other countries elections and invading or threatening your neighbors is not going to stop NATO expansion but can have the opposite effect of driving more countries towards NATO rather than keeping them away.

As far Georgia and some of the past Russian adventures in their region, those situations are not exactly the same as what is happening in Ukraine. Their are greater risks this time for Russian adventurism going into Ukraine unlike their past adventures in other former Soviet republics. But I don't think Putin cares. He's a dictator and his primary concern is creating an external boogeyman, which he has chosen NATO to be that boogeyman, to keep himself in power and his people in line.

Like any dictator, what Putin cares about is one thing: POWER and keeping it. That's his primary motivation and that's why we are seeing Russian forces at the Ukrainian border. It's about power for Putin and not the safety and security of his own citizens. He'll do anything to stay in power. Just like Trump (Putin and Trump are two peas in a pod and have much in common). So, again, Putin is the common denominator here.

He'll ignore his generals advice if he needs to in order to keep himself in power. He doesn't mind un-necessarily sacrificing a few Russian lives if it will help him stay in power. However, it could turn out to be his undoing if a long, drawn out, protracted conflict breaks out in the Ukraine and Russian casualties pile up. But if casualties pile up for the Russians in Ukraine, I think Putin will seek to keep those casualties a secret from his own people because he knows that could turn his own people against him.

[Juin]

@Juin

You are ignoring a very important factor here. Russia drives these countries towards NATO. These countries come to NATO seeking protection from an aggressive Russia. Russia drives them to NATO. If you don't want NATO at your border, then stop driving countries to NATO. Start treating them as friends instead of enemies and Russia won't have to worry about NATO at their borders.

You know, Kruschev could have made exactly same argument back in 1962: The United States drives these countries [Cuba, as an example] towards the Warsaw Pact. Cuba and others came to the Warsaw Pact seeking protection from an aggressive United States. If you dont want Warsaw Pact nukes at your border, then stop driving countries to the Warsaw Pact. Start treating Castro as a friend insteand of as an enemy and the US wont have to worry about Warsaw Pact nukes off the coast of Florida.

We all know how that played out, right? The US was not gonna tolerate Soviet nukes off Florida, irrespective of what US policies Fidel Castro believed was driving him into the welcoming arms of the Soviet Union.

And the US was right. A power is not gonna tolerate a rival hostile alliance setting up shop off its borders if it can help it. The US could, and did tolerate a communist Cuba off its coast. But a Soviet presence was another matter; that was intolerable.

I do not see how Russia has pursued its interests any differently.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Russia respected the territorial integrity of Ukraine following the collapse. And that was the case till 2014. That was when Nato/Eu made a play for Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. At that point Russia had to act. Exactly like the US did in 1962

[Juin]

@Juin

Hacking other countries elections and invading or threatening your neighbors is not going to stop NATO expansion but can have the opposite effect of driving more countries towards NATO rather than keeping them away.

The CIA also has a long history of meddling in, and overthrowing the regimes of smaller countries.

[Juin]

@Juin


Like any dictator, what Putin cares about is one thing: POWER and keeping it. That's his primary motivation and that's why we are seeing Russian forces at the Ukrainian border. It's about power for Putin and not the safety and security of his own citizens. He'll do anything to stay in power. Just like Trump (Putin and Trump are two peas in a pod and have much in common). So, again, Putin is the common denominator here.

He'll ignore his generals advice if he needs to in order to keep himself in power. He doesn't mind un-necessarily sacrificing a few Russian lives if it will help him stay in power. However, it could turn out to be his undoing if a long, drawn out, protracted conflict breaks out in the Ukraine and Russian casualties pile up. But if casualties pile up for the Russians in Ukraine, I think Putin will seek to keep those casualties a secret from his own people because he knows that could turn his own people against him.

You should also read Russian publications and Russian opinions. It is a mistake to assume that they see things the way you do. For starters, you are of the view that Ukraine ownership of Donbass and Crimea is God given. The Russian view is different. Russians drew the boundaries of what today is Ukraine. It was Kruschev who allocated territories to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. And at the time it posed no problem since Russia dominated all the Soviet Republics.

And a question repeatedly pops up in my mind. If Ukrainians under Russian domination are entitled to be independent, how come you reject independence for Russian minorities under Ukrainian domination? Is what is good for a Ukrainian not also good for a Russian?

[Politics_Observer]

@Juin

There is a Russian community in Atlanta, Georgia close by where I live and they get along just fine with everybody. Should we give that community independence and let them live under the Russian government just because there is a Russian community there? I don't think so, and neither should the Ukrainians do so. It's the same concept. Russia itself recognized that as Ukrainian territory. Pure and simple. Now, all the sudden, out of the blue, they have decided that this territory somehow was there's all along when in fact those were international recognized borders that Russia itself agreed to and recognized prior to it's invasion of Ukraine.

I had stated this before in a previous post and that rebuffs your claim that somehow the Russians in Ukraine are entitled to their own state just because they so happen to have a community in Ukraine. Russians in Ukraine have no right to an independent state no more than Russians living in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States are entitled to their own state. They live here in America on American land, just as those Russians live there in Ukraine, on Ukrainian land.

That all being said, let's debunk some of the contentions that the members of the Russian government have made about NATO here with this article from the Center for European Policy Analysis, an excellent authoritative source. I have put in bold black italics the points from this authoritative source that support my assertions.

Moscow has manufactured a thick mist of disinformation about NATO in order to disguise its expansionist policies in Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, lurking behind this propaganda offensive is a genuine fear in the Kremlin that the North Atlantic alliance will thwart Kremlin ambitions and weaken the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russia’s NATO myth-making can be debunked by examining the evidence. According to Moscow’s deceptions, Russia tried to join Western institutions during the 1990s but was rebuffed and ostracized. In reality, the Russian Federation has failed to meet the basic standards for either EU or NATO membership—whether in the rule of law, democratic governance or military reform–and its aggressive aspirations toward neighboring states counters the core principles of both multinational organizations.

Russia’s officials also contend that NATO captured the post-communist countries and threatened Russia’s borders. In reality, NATO enlargement over the past 20 years has been a voluntary process initiated by each aspirant state. It has not created a hostile alliance along Russia’s western frontiers but improved relations among new NATO members and diminished their fear of Kremlin attacks. Moreover, no neighboring country has voiced claims to Russia’s territory or its resources. Above all, NATO, in its doctrine, exercises, military posture and force dispositions is neither a threat to Russia’s statehood nor a danger to its territorial integrity.

Despite these facts, the Kremlin has a troika of fears about NATO. These do not revolve around Russia’s national security but are based on profound anxieties about the future of the Putin administration.

In the first place, the Kremlin president has anchored his domestic legitimacy on restoring Russia’s great power status and reining in neighbors that have veered away from Moscow. Such ambitions are blocked when aspirants enter NATO and benefit from its core principle of mutual defense. And although Russian security is not challenged by any country’s accession to NATO, Moscow’s ability to control their security dimensions and foreign policy orientations is largely thwarted. In this sense, NATO is an effective deterrent against Russia’s threat.

The second fear for the Putinists is that NATO is a source of attraction for other post-Soviet states, including Russia’s allies. Unlike NATO and the EU, Moscow’s alliances are not voluntary but consist of countries trapped in a dependency relationship based on blackmail, bribery and threats. In seeking genuine national independence, several capitals have turned to Western institutions for help and protection. When they do, Moscow inverts reality by claiming that it is being surrounded by enemies and needs to pursue an aggressive posture to combat them.

In the most glaring recent example of truth inversion, Moscow—in justifying its attack on Ukraine—charged that Washington organized the overthrow of the Kyiv government in February 2014 primarily to create an excuse for reinvigorating NATO and deploying U.S. forces closer to Russia’s borders. In reality, the Ukrainian revolution was indigenous and is thereby a potential precedent for Russia itself. NATO simply responded to Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its escalating threats against the alliance’s eastern flank by increasing its defensive presence in the region.

Third, and most importantly, Moscow fears NATO as the security core of Europe’s development that challenges the credibility of Russia’s ruling dictatorship. Not surprisingly, the Kremlin’s main fear over Ukraine was the prospect that its large neighbor would be transformed into a democratic, unified and prosperous state that achieves EU accession and NATO membership. Such a model of development can become increasingly attractive for Russia’s citizens.

For Kremlin officials an independent, democratic, economically stable and internationally integrated Ukraine symbolizes everything that threatens their hold on power. A successful Ukrainian model of development would expose the Russian model as a failure and inspire dozens of impoverished federal regions to seek greater control over their own destiny by opposing the current hyper-centralized regime in Moscow.

https://cepa.org/why-moscow-fears-nato/

[ingliz]

@blackjack21

"The Russians have no interest in taking Ukraine."

Seeing as I recognize the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, Russia would not be 'taking' Ukraine.

[noemon]

Russia invaded the Ukraine and is now illegally occupying parts of it in order to prevent the Ukraine from signing a trade agreement with the EU that would enable the Ukrainian people to trade, work and travel in the EU.

[ingliz]

in order to prevent the Ukraine from signing a trade agreement with the EU that would enable the Ukrainian people to trade, work and travel in the EU.

What's stopping them?

[noemon]

Russia’s invasion, illegal occupation, terrorism and ongoing war between the Ukraine and Russia.

[Tainari88]

@blackjack21 wrote:

They feel they have the right for the same reason that the French and British--longstanding rivals--decided to join forces and fight against the Russians in Crimea. The Ukrainian flag is basically yellow wheat fields and blue sky. It was the bread basket of the Soviet Union, and an important part of the Soviet military industrial complex. US geostrategy would be about undermining the rise of a peer competitor. Hence, it would seek Ukraine to be independent of Russia.

The Soviet Union was a union of very varied ethnicities and nationalities all under a system of governance. It split up when the government was dissolved and the Russian federation became its own entity.

What I highlighted in yellow is the reason why peace and justice will never happen when the Imperialist bullshit competition for the winner takes all mentality continues to drive geopolitics. It is nasty, and bellicose and wasteful and anti-humane.

I hate it. The USA instigates it. Russia is run by hard right mafia style immoral people. They also do have legit concerns (based on real invasions from the past in history that cost them millions of casualties) and the USA has never experienced that sort of ugly imperialism in its own territory. Bad karma BJ. The USA continues to want to undermine that Russian bear and the Chinese ambitions with their authoritarian socialism? Those two combine someday to undermine your greed filled idiot leadership structure it is going to go bad for your side.

I hate imperialism. All it does is continue to create problems with their zero sum game mentality. Let human societies work on good things, and productive things. Like education, housing, health care, consumer needs that don't screw over the environment, and job growth and stability and helping the youth get ready for a family and a life.

All this waste ON BULLSHIT NEED TO DOMINATE and never give rights to normal people in these nations SUCKS!

[ingliz]

Russia’s invasion, illegal occupation, terrorism. and ongoing war between the Ukraine and Russia.

How does that stop Ukraine from signing a trade agreement with the EU?