Cameroni

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.

The US has been telling my country what to do for 79 years. It is nice to live in this world of perfect morality, however, real events do not happen there, they happen in the real world. Russia has fed Ukraine, built up Ukrainian infrastructure, fought side by side with Ukraine, gave Ukraine territory, you may find Russians see this differently.

Look, if a snake eats a mouse, the mouse thinks "this is very bad". The snake just thinks it's lunchtime. There is no good and bad. Only perspective. Yes, from UKraine's and uniformed Westerners perspective the invasion of Ukraine was bad. However, from the Russian perspective, they had been lied to and deceived by the West that they would not expand NATO eastwards. They had invested millions in building Ukraine, given them territory, and shared a common history only to see Ukraine instead put its hand down the west's trousers and insult Russia, even calling for nuclear weapons in Ukraine. To Russia the invasion was not the same bad as for Ukraine or the West. Their perspective was different. If you want to understand this conflict you need to understand this perspective too.

It was not a "treatise", merely an article he wrote where he articulates what every Russian thinks, that Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. It is a historical fact actually. This is the same, as when NATO's Atlantic Council tries to twist Putin's words in that interview and claims that because of his views on history Putin inevitably wants to invade Poland to recreate Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous.

Oh please, this is like referring to Andrew Neil's nationalist fantasies and then claim it is UK state policy. You are confusing propaganda and wishful thinking by ten a penny nationalists with real state policy. They are not the same.

Yes, that is what anoher poster here has suggested. Of course Russia wants a pro-Russian Ukraine, but if it can not be so then perhaps Russia will settle for a very weakened Ukraine. No, Russia does not want Ukraine's resources, because if they did they would have attacked those areas where those resources are, and they have not. The fighting is contained in a very specific area mostly. No, I'm not "drunk", I just understand that Crimea did not happen in a vaccuum, but rather happpened after NATO made clear in 2008 that Ukrainian membership in NATO was on the cards. Russia had repeatedly made clear that NATO expansion eastwards was unacceptable and a line in the sand. When the West foolishly crossed that line, a response by Russia was inevitable.

You don't have to read Russian media, all you need is to hear John Mearsheimer speak, the world's leading authority on international relations, he explains the Ukraine conflict very well. I have, have you? I am not "throwing mud around", I am merely calling a duck a duck. You have a very single sided view of this conflict. Russia bad. Ukraine good. But reality is quite different. And were you not accusing other posters of swallowing propaganda?