US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

+1

This is all just soooooo exciting for all these policy wonks and bored journalists. They were even leading questions last week with WWIII questions. What an industry!

This is not exciting, this is deeply troubling. We are already in a proxy WWIII.

There is also this wishful thinking that Putin would have been deterred by a tough Republican President. This is incorrect. He has been planning this since before the election and was counting on a Trump second term. He primed Trump and got him to do all the ground work in the first term (move away from NATO and damage those relationships, stop sending funds and arms to Ukraine etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

I think I asked this a few pages ago, but what's with all the stupid questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.

Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:24 more months for Axis of Evil countries to make their big moves.

USA has some trans swimmers, founding father statues, and more dumbing down of K-8 education to attend to.

And maybe social and mass media can whip up some new mask mandates and fear that we’re all going into die.

Top issues the right wing is complaining about and running their campaigns on:

Budget? Nope

National defense? Nope

Commerce and trade? Nope

Foreign policy and strengthening US position by building international alliances? Nope.

Infrastructure? Nope

Healthcare? Hell no

Environment? Hell no.

Education? Maybe 1800s education, via private and religious schools

Energy policy? Only one: drill baby drill.

Instead it's all about:

Criminalize the handful of trans athletes in the country (while ignoring all the other athletes who cheat and win by doping)

Forbid any true or accurate teaching of slavery, Jim Crow, and modern-day discrimination

Make it legal to run protesters over

Make it legal to follow, stalk, harrass and shoot anyone you don't like (Zimmerman Stand Your Ground)

Protect cops when they are violent, murderous and abusive - as long as they are killing black people - but demonize cops trying to protect the nation's capitol from domestic terror.

Criminalize south-of-the-border migrants but don't actually do anything effective about it - like spend billions on a wall that can be defeated with a cheap cordless angle grinder, like don't fix policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

Trump and the republicans. They like Putin…he is strong…much strong vs trump!

[Anonymous]

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

The optimal strategy for protecting Ukraine over the last few years wasn't clear, and I still don't think it is clear.

After Crimea crisis, the options were
(1) do nothing at all (no military) assistance whatsoever,
(2) a massive and rapid increase of military assistance, or
(3) something in between (1) and (2)

Had we used option (2) a few years ago, this probably would have accelerated Putin's invasion. Had we taken option (1), then Ukraine would have had a harder time fighting the invasion once it occurred. I believe we took approach #3, which, I think, was a reasonable approach to take, even though it didn't lead to the desired outcome.

To have successfully prevented the invasion, I think we would have to roll the clock back 20 years and, starting around 2001, employ an entirely different strategy. Either we would have needed to rapidly expand NATO all the way to Ukraine during the period in which Russia was quite weak, or, alternatively, we could have taken the opposite approach, designating all countries that border Russia as neutral territory in which neither Russia nor NATO would have forces and/or weapons systems. The goal would have been to change the basic character of the Russia/West relationship, aiming for a higher level of trust, and perhaps some cooperation (Russia did cooperate with NATO with respect to Bosnia peace-keeping). This would have been difficult, requiring a lot of diplomacy, and perhaps would have failed, but we have no way of knowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?

We have. Russia is now a global pariah. They've tripled the size of the Ukrainian tank battalion through sheer incompetence. Their economy is done and they will never be able to hold Ukraine. Enjoy your new life as China's serfs.

What have we done? Did we Stop Russia from destroying Ukraine? The size of the Ukrainian tank Battalion is triple? With all those tanks, they can take the fight to Russia now, right?
Am trying to figure out if you're delusional or just plain dumb and stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.

Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

Who said they thought they'd accomplish that in a day or two? Did they tell us that? Or you heard that from western media?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

DP-I don't get your point. How is it an embarrassing disaster for Russia? If they are such a global joke, why aren't we able to do something about?

We have. Russia is now a global pariah. They've tripled the size of the Ukrainian tank battalion through sheer incompetence. Their economy is done and they will never be able to hold Ukraine. Enjoy your new life as China's serfs.

What have we done? Did we Stop Russia from destroying Ukraine? The size of the Ukrainian tank Battalion is triple? With all those tanks, they can take the fight to Russia now, right?
Am trying to figure out if you're delusional or just plain dumb and stupid

DP. That PP is not clueless. Don't need to try to figure that out about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.

Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

Who said they thought they'd accomplish that in a day or two? Did they tell us that? Or you heard that from western media?

You don't keep up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.

Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

Who said they thought they'd accomplish that in a day or two? Did they tell us that? Or you heard that from western media?

Dp- I think their bumbling incompetence tipped off 5 eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.

Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

Who said they thought they'd accomplish that in a day or two? Did they tell us that? Or you heard that from western media?

You don't keep up?

Maybe you can point me to the link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why wasn't Nato or UN already IN Ukraine the last few years given the Crimea debacle and takeover?

The optimal strategy for protecting Ukraine over the last few years wasn't clear, and I still don't think it is clear.

After Crimea crisis, the options were
(1) do nothing at all (no military) assistance whatsoever,
(2) a massive and rapid increase of military assistance, or
(3) something in between (1) and (2)

Had we used option (2) a few years ago, this probably would have accelerated Putin's invasion. Had we taken option (1), then Ukraine would have had a harder time fighting the invasion once it occurred. I believe we took approach #3, which, I think, was a reasonable approach to take, even though it didn't lead to the desired outcome.

To have successfully prevented the invasion, I think we would have to roll the clock back 20 years and, starting around 2001, employ an entirely different strategy. Either we would have needed to rapidly expand NATO all the way to Ukraine during the period in which Russia was quite weak, or, alternatively, we could have taken the opposite approach, designating all countries that border Russia as neutral territory in which neither Russia nor NATO would have forces and/or weapons systems. The goal would have been to change the basic character of the Russia/West relationship, aiming for a higher level of trust, and perhaps some cooperation (Russia did cooperate with NATO with respect to Bosnia peace-keeping). This would have been difficult, requiring a lot of diplomacy, and perhaps would have failed, but we have no way of knowing.

Would have been a pointless approach as Russia does not want neutrality of those countries but wants them under its sphere of influence, and the countries refused. The strategy that was followed was to entice Russia to form strong connections to Europe.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10593177/Ukraine-war-Russia-reopens-evacuation-routes-besieged-cities.html

Enough already!

What are world leaders waiting for? Why do they trust Putin won't escalate or invade other countries as long as we stand down and let him take Ukraine?

I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Iran, n Korea, China and Russia all made significant strides in 2009 onward. U.S. diplomacy then was extremely weak, even the CFR admits that. sect Hillary Clinton was neutered and told to fly around and say Hi to FSO offices. Meanwhile Iran cancels UN nuke tours, n Korean did enrichment, China swallowed up IP, and Russia military mobilized. Pirates took ships, Cuba got more tourism dollars, Venezuela went nuts, An executive order illegally mobilized US military to Libya to help secure EU oil and failed at the bS Spring Awakening and domestic race relations took ten turns for the worse.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia began in August 2008, while GW was in power and prior to US elections. You have a confirmation bias and trying to pick events to fit your narrative.

Cool deflection. Brookings and CFR disagree.

That’s not a deflection, that’s a simple fact. Putin’s strategy, his end goal and progress towards that goal were cast well before Obama came into power. Baltics and Eastern Europeans have been saying this for years.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the truth is all Western leaders brought Russia into the fold, in good faith, this is why everyone was shocked (including ultra nationalists like Orban) when he invaded Ukraine.

Biden’s/Obama’s admin has just unmasked him.

Agree he's wanted to do this a long time and he made two of his major moves during Obama and now Biden/Harris. Nothing to unmask. You always strike when your adversaries are weak and in disarray. Oh, and wait for the olympics to be over so your athletes can compete.

And then get stuck in the mud and get completely humiliated by the guy you think is weak, lol.

what's your point? a tank got stuck in the mud in winter and Putin is so humiliated he's pulling all his 1000s of military artillary out? What new softie Disney movie is this?

My point is simple. This has been an embarrassing disaster for Russia. They underestimated Biden and by doing China a favor they got stuck in the mud. Russia is a global joke. Enjoy your new life as China's servant.

OK U.S. mass media. Thanks for toeing the line on that the last 10 days. I disagree, this is not a disaster for Russia, though many Americans want to believe that.

Besides, end game is what again? The same. Putin gets more of Ukraine.

It's a military disaster. It's been two weeks and they haven't taken the capital yet? Something they thought they'd accomplish in a day or two? Their equipment is demonstrably crap. The worldwide perception of their military has gone from fearsome to clownish. They're pretty much going to be considered war criminal terrorists for the next decade. And their economy is going to be severely stunted for just as long. And it seems rather unlikely that they're going to get any more of Ukraine unless their battlefield performance dramatically improves. And even then, they'll be subjected to insurgency attacks from here until forever. What part of this "special military operation" resulted in something positive for them?

Who said they thought they'd accomplish that in a day or two? Did they tell us that? Or you heard that from western media?

You don't keep up?

Maybe you can point me to the link?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/ex-russian-official-putins-plan-is-full-victory-on-march-2