Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the bickering on this thread just tells me that the Russian effort to weaken the US by encouraging political fighting among US citizens is working.

Who knew we were so easy to weaken. Or that Republicans would be easily manipulated to Russia.

Honestly, this whole thread tells me that Americans are largely ignorant of the actual facts of post-WWII Europe and Russian history. Both Republicans who accept the kind of fake news descriptions of European and Russian history and alliances and the Democrats who have so little knowledge they cannot effectively pre-but or re-but these fake news, a-historical descriptions of past events.

This x 1 for every voting American.

This is true.

CN you be surprised? So many people including an astounding number of posters on this forum boasted about how they were going to ignore the news once Biden was elected. This we have a country full of ignorant people who easily accept headlines as facts

You have just bought into Russia’s propaganda. Speak to anyone in Central or Easter Europe. They want nothing to do with Russia, they will never orient towards Russia whether they were member of NATO or not. This is why Russia has basically resorted to raping it’s neighbor, because the neighbor wants nothing to do with it’s sphere of influence. Some of you have this myopic view of the world in which lands can be parsed and sub-dived between a couple of super powers. It does not work that way, you can’t do it by brute force, the people will resist.

This is completely right. Do you wonder why the Poles are cheerfully accepting a million Ukrainians in a week? Because they were sacrificed by Stalin to Hitler in the Molotov-VonRibbentrop Pact and then the remainder of Poland was invaded by Stalin. After that, in 1940, Soviet troops murdered the 22000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia in the Katyn Forest Massacres (although they denied it for some 50+ years). The Poles lived for almost 50 years under the thumb of The Soviet Union, enduring cycles of reform and repression until the 80’s when the Solidarity movement, despite Jaruzelski’s martial law, final culminated in increasingly free elections and the collapse of communism.

Do you think there is a single Polish citizen who is willing to go back to the Russian sphere of influence? Or even to some kind of “neutrality”? Even the Finns don’t advocate neutrality for Ukraine!

All these countries lived under the Soviets/Russia and not one of them will willingly go back.

FFS people learn some history!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the bickering on this thread just tells me that the Russian effort to weaken the US by encouraging political fighting among US citizens is working.

Who knew we were so easy to weaken. Or that Republicans would be easily manipulated to Russia.

Honestly, this whole thread tells me that Americans are largely ignorant of the actual facts of post-WWII Europe and Russian history. Both Republicans who accept the kind of fake news descriptions of European and Russian history and alliances and the Democrats who have so little knowledge they cannot effectively pre-but or re-but these fake news, a-historical descriptions of past events.

This x 1 for every voting American.

This is true.

CN you be surprised? So many people including an astounding number of posters on this forum boasted about how they were going to ignore the news once Biden was elected. This we have a country full of ignorant people who easily accept headlines as facts

You have just bought into Russia’s propaganda. Speak to anyone in Central or Easter Europe. They want nothing to do with Russia, they will never orient towards Russia whether they were member of NATO or not. This is why Russia has basically resorted to raping it’s neighbor, because the neighbor wants nothing to do with it’s sphere of influence. Some of you have this myopic view of the world in which lands can be parsed and sub-dived between a couple of super powers. It does not work that way, you can’t do it by brute force, the people will resist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the bickering on this thread just tells me that the Russian effort to weaken the US by encouraging political fighting among US citizens is working.

Who knew we were so easy to weaken. Or that Republicans would be easily manipulated to Russia.

Honestly, this whole thread tells me that Americans are largely ignorant of the actual facts of post-WWII Europe and Russian history. Both Republicans who accept the kind of fake news descriptions of European and Russian history and alliances and the Democrats who have so little knowledge they cannot effectively pre-but or re-but these fake news, a-historical descriptions of past events.

This x 1 for every voting American.

This is true.

CN you be surprised? So many people including an astounding number of posters on this forum boasted about how they were going to ignore the news once Biden was elected. This we have a country full of ignorant people who easily accept headlines as facts

And they constantly bring things back to the frameworks they understand: how Americans outvoted Trump in 2020, for example, because they’re too lazy to understand another country on its own terms. Everything has to come back to some ridiculous comparison to the USA.

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.

The Suwalski Gap keeps the Russian and Belarus military up at night. It is a vulnerability to them. That is one of the best paths of entry if the West were to launch a ground assault on Russia. It is one of Russia's equivalents of what the Fulda Gap was to the West prior to the fall of the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

Keeps them up at night? LOL. Europe hitched its energy wagon to Russia, Western companies have invested trillions in Russia. Europe has invested little in military. That was the level of trust the West had in Russia. You have to be an idiot to think that there was ever any military threat or fear of military threat. This is just a money grab and consolidation on power for Putin’s mafia state. The security concerns are simply a distraction.

That's all over now. Europe is uniting in its hate for Russia. That makes the Suwalski Gap a huge liability for Russia.

Forget the Suwalski gap, Ukraine is a huge f-ing liability for Russia. They took a friendly neighbor with a large Russian speaking population and historic and cultural ties and turned them into an enemy that will fight them to the death for decades. That’s what should keep them up at night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the bickering on this thread just tells me that the Russian effort to weaken the US by encouraging political fighting among US citizens is working.

Who knew we were so easy to weaken. Or that Republicans would be easily manipulated to Russia.

Honestly, this whole thread tells me that Americans are largely ignorant of the actual facts of post-WWII Europe and Russian history. Both Republicans who accept the kind of fake news descriptions of European and Russian history and alliances and the Democrats who have so little knowledge they cannot effectively pre-but or re-but these fake news, a-historical descriptions of past events.

This x 1 for every voting American.

This is true.

CN you be surprised? So many people including an astounding number of posters on this forum boasted about how they were going to ignore the news once Biden was elected. This we have a country full of ignorant people who easily accept headlines as facts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the bickering on this thread just tells me that the Russian effort to weaken the US by encouraging political fighting among US citizens is working.

Who knew we were so easy to weaken. Or that Republicans would be easily manipulated to Russia.

Honestly, this whole thread tells me that Americans are largely ignorant of the actual facts of post-WWII Europe and Russian history. Both Republicans who accept the kind of fake news descriptions of European and Russian history and alliances and the Democrats who have so little knowledge they cannot effectively pre-but or re-but these fake news, a-historical descriptions of past events.

This x 1 for every voting American.

This is true.

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.

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.

The Suwalski Gap keeps the Russian and Belarus military up at night. It is a vulnerability to them. That is one of the best paths of entry if the West were to launch a ground assault on Russia. It is one of Russia's equivalents of what the Fulda Gap was to the West prior to the fall of the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

Keeps them up at night? LOL. Europe hitched its energy wagon to Russia, Western companies have invested trillions in Russia. Europe has invested little in military. That was the level of trust the West had in Russia. You have to be an idiot to think that there was ever any military threat or fear of military threat. This is just a money grab and consolidation on power for Putin’s mafia state. The security concerns are simply a distraction.

That's all over now. Europe is uniting in its hate for Russia. That makes the Suwalski Gap a huge liability for Russia.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion isn’t the cause. It’s the effect. Countries want in NATO and the EU because Russia won’t leave them alone, militarily or economically. They don’t want to be puppet states with Russia installing thei leaders and looting their economies.

Yes, this is the tl;dr explanation for those with short attention spans. I would just say they don’t want to “go back to” being puppet states—been there done that. Freedom was hard won and they’re not giving it back.

At the same time, small countries are puppet states, always will be.
No super power has their interest in heart
The countries that have a border with Russia will have it for all eternity and it is in their interest for Russia to be happy healthy wealthy and wise.
Everybody wants to rule the world and the superpowers care about themselves and themselves and themselves
The interest of NATO is not everyone's interest

This is ridiculous and dangerous understanding of modern politics.

Many small countries are far from puppet states (Finland, New Zealand, Ireland to name but a few)

It is in American interests to protect democratic values and countries that follow rule of law and democratic outcomes - unless you want to end up in an authoritarian puppet regime yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the bickering on this thread just tells me that the Russian effort to weaken the US by encouraging political fighting among US citizens is working.

Who knew we were so easy to weaken. Or that Republicans would be easily manipulated to Russia.

Honestly, this whole thread tells me that Americans are largely ignorant of the actual facts of post-WWII Europe and Russian history. Both Republicans who accept the kind of fake news descriptions of European and Russian history and alliances and the Democrats who have so little knowledge they cannot effectively pre-but or re-but these fake news, a-historical descriptions of past events.

This x 1 for every voting American.

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion isn’t the cause. It’s the effect. Countries want in NATO and the EU because Russia won’t leave them alone, militarily or economically. They don’t want to be puppet states with Russia installing thei leaders and looting their economies.

Plus one

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.

The Suwalski Gap keeps the Russian and Belarus military up at night. It is a vulnerability to them. That is one of the best paths of entry if the West were to launch a ground assault on Russia. It is one of Russia's equivalents of what the Fulda Gap was to the West prior to the fall of the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

Keeps them up at night? LOL. Europe hitched its energy wagon to Russia, Western companies have invested trillions in Russia. Europe has invested little in military. That was the level of trust the West had in Russia. You have to be an idiot to think that there was ever any military threat or fear of military threat. This is just a money grab and consolidation on power for Putin’s mafia state. The security concerns are simply a distraction.

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.

The Suwalski Gap keeps the Russian and Belarus military up at night. It is a vulnerability to them. That is one of the best paths of entry if the West were to launch a ground assault on Russia. It is one of Russia's equivalents of what the Fulda Gap was to the West prior to the fall of the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

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.