Cameroni

True, the when was left open, perhaps because 2008 was when the plan to allow Ukraine into Nato was revealed and a firm date would have been seen as too much of a provocation of Russia. After all, prior to 2008 it was consistently stated that NATO would not expand and that Russia would be included in a subsequent peace framework. Since Ukraine already in 2002 made clear its interest in joining NATO it seems to me it is true to say that Ukraine was keen to join NATO before 2014. You are right though that the West prevaricated about Ukraine's actual joining date, perhaps because Germany strongly opposed it. However, as we both agree, it was just a question of "when", not "if", once the cat was let out of the bag in 2008.

NATO certainly did make clear at the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit that Ukraine and Georgia would become members of NATO. The exact wording used is contained here: "Georgia and Ukraine had hoped to join the NATO Membership Action Plan, but, while welcoming the two countries’ aspirations for membership and agreeing that "these countries will become members of NATO", the NATO members decided to review their request in December 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit Yanukovych of course disappeared and more anti-Russian and pro American leaderhip emerged. Since NATO had stated clearly that Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO, even if that was under review and conditions had to be met, this obviously made it very likely that it will happen since Ukraine was very keen on it.

Russia possesses a total of 5,580 nuclear warheads as of 2024,[5] the largest confirmed stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world. Russia created the first ICBM. the R-7. In terms of numbers Russia has almost three times as many ICBMs as the US. The table here illustrates that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile In addition Russia has already developed fast moving missiles that can not be intercepted by missile defense systems. Ukraine never had Ukranian ICBMs, since the Ukraine never had nuclear weapons of its own. It only hosted Russian nuclear weapons and ICBMs.

No doubt America will tell Germany and all the other NATO members to pony up for rebuilding Ukraine. After pouring billions into keeping the war going. It really is a cynical and ugly game the US is playing, because it knows full well that the Ukraine can never win this war. Of course the US do not care, because for them it is all about weakening Russia, not Ukrainian freedom. Anyone who believes that will believe Father Christmas lives in Greenland.

I suspect that is why the rockets were moved from Ukraine, to prevent tampering and sabotage. This Kursk excursion is only 1000 troops. To say it is just theatre may be overstating it since 1000 armed man wreak a good havoc for a while, but given the numbers these Ukrainians face soon I would not put money on them holding on to any land. All politicians by their nature lie like there is no tomorrow, however, we do not just have Putin making statements, we also have evidence of where the fighting is taking place. If Putin had intended to take all of Ukraine this campaign would have looked very different. And remember, Russia has an economy smaller than Texas, it knows it can not fight or occupy the Ukraine long term, since military might is based on economic strength. This is why these arguments that Putin wants all of Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Sweden, and to rebuild an Imperial Russia are so risible. They cannot, and Putin knows they cannot.

Ukrainians are quite ingenious and beautiful people, no doubt about it. However, as Kenny Rogers tells us, "there'll be plenty of time for countin'..when the dealin's done". And the way it looks now is that Ukraine will permanently retreat from the Donbass. Ukraine can not win anything by fighting Russia. Yes, Russia paid a price, but Ukraine has too, far worse. And no, they could not have cracked the nuclear launch codes anymore than Mexico could crack US nuclear codes.

In 2002 Putin and Russia still believed that Ukraine would never be a member of NATO. Only in 2008 did NATO reveal its full expansion plans would include Ukraine and Georgia. Russia, as that article makes clear, immediately stated this was a threat to Russia's security and a step too far.

No, I have. Twice. You just were unable to read what was posted for you. I'll post it again: "Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002,[145][161] joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in February 2005,[162] then entered into the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO in April 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Ukraine did not have its own nuclear weapons. Those were Russia's nuclear weapons and Russia always retained the codes. Yes, Russia is paying a price for its security. This is of course exactly what America wanted. To weaken Russia. Russia, I suspect, prefers to be weaker but intact, rather than emasculated and at the whim of NATO, like Germany, Britain, France, all impotent vassals of America. Just like Australia

I did. You just did not read the article thoroughly. "Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002,[145][161] joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in February 2005,[162] then entered into the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO in April 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO Since you are big on timeline, you will note this is all before Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

Absolutely, love is just a fantasy of the soul. Brotherly love, or romantic love. Never believe this bs. Even the love between parent and child is on very flimsy foundations. If a child keeps making its parents lives miserable, it will potentally pay a price.

And yet we all went about our business and accepted, hey, the US can invade Panama, no big deal. No sactions. No weapons for Panama. Nothing. But when Russa invades Ukraine, that's totally unacceptable. How so?

This is rather obvious and has been stated here at least 10 times. Ukraine established ties with NATO in 2002. In 2008 NATO made clear that eastward expansion of NATO proper was the plan. Crimea happened after that. Russia had always made clear that for its own security it can not accept NATO expansion eastwards. All this is public knowledge, and again has been stated here a dozen times.

What makes you think Putin would not have sent a pre-emptive killing mission if Biden had threatened Putin with the same? Or that his successors would not have done so in revenge?

Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO Please do not misrepresent history, because I will immediately see that.

The question is nonsensical in the current situation. Ukraine has opted to repeatedly poke Russia in the eye with a stick. Now it is paying the price that all smaller nations potentially pay for not considering the interests of their larger, more powerful neighbours. Now there is no respecting Ukraine's safety anymore, because Ukraine has shown it is just as serious a problem for Russia as Putin had feared. Maybe more. Ukraine can be independent, but if it is it has to act responsibly for its own people. If it chooses to keep poking Russia in the eye with a stick and not to consider Russian interests, then, sadly, it may not be independent for much longer.

All you can resort to is personal insults, but not coherent argument. This means I have won. I of course do not accept that Putin is a "warmonger". I accept that just like the US invaded Panama when it violated US interests, Russia invaded Ukraine when Ukraine violated Russian interests. The US can invade Panama but Russia can't invade Ukraine? How so?

You forget that if Biden had done that Putin could have retaliated in kind. Russia has repeatedly sent agents to kill Westerners, from Markov to Skripal. Do you think they could not do the same? I doubt Biden would be so foolish.

No. I don't think Putin has a problem with Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine being independent. He would be quite happy for them to be independent if they are pro-Russian. See how Belarus is safe. All he wants is a Russian friendly neighbour, but alas, Ukraine has shown itself to be a bad neighbour indeed. The West IS to blame for everything. After 1989 we had a golden opportunity to take the hand Russia extended. Russia allowed Germany to unify, helped US space exploration, implemented Western economic reforms. We could have integrated Russia at the table. Instead Western politicians opted to deceive and lie to Russia and to encircle it and threaten its territorial safety. How is this not the West's fault?

I know. But they forgot their state is next to Russia. If your state is next to Russia you have to consider Russian interests. Just as, if you live next to the USA you have to consider American interests. Noriega selling intelligence to Cuba did not work out so well for Noriega, did it? So the US can invade its neighbours but Russia can't because the citizens want to be independent? All citizens want to be independent, but international relations are about more than this.

You misunderstood, I meant AFTER Russia's nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine many Ukranian politicians called for Ukraine to be armed with its own nuclear weapons. Do you think that was a wise move if Russia is your neihbour? Arguably the Ukraine violated that agreement first by entertaining NATO membership.

Obviously not, because that implied Ukrainian membership in NATO and American missiles pointed at Russia from Ukraine. If Ukranian citizens do not want to consider that their state is next to Russia and they do not understand that they have to take Russian interests into account, if they keep poking Russia in the eye, then maybe these are not the smartest citizens. It's not like Russa's history is written in a secret book. If you live next to Russia you have to take into account Russian interests. Just as if you live next to the USA you have to take US interests into account. Failure to do so is at your own peril.

The BBC is state owned as well. So if Gary Lineker says let's invade Germany this is then state policy? Come on man. I have read the article, and the parts where Putin says Russians and Ukrainians share a history, well, he's in line with every Russian there, all Russians believe this. You know why? Because it's historical fact, Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. This does not mean that Russia wants to recreate Imperial Russia, I hope you understand this.

He also wrote "we respect Ukraine's safety", so why are you so hung up on this article by Putin? The parts that were true, were those where he says Russians share a history with Ukraine. Of course Putin wants the Donbass, and he will have it. That much is true as well.

I am not against countries becoming indepedent. But if a country has Russia as a neighbour it would do well to consider Russian sensibilities and interests, because if it keeps poking Russia in the eye with a stick it may not be an independent country for much longer. I am a realist, that's all.