Cameroni

Again, you keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Poland's negotiations to obtain nuclear weapons were a cause of the Ukraine war. However, the possibility that Ukraine could become a member of NATO and request nuclear sharing most likely did play a role in considerations in Russia. How do you know there was no intention to extend nuclear sharing to some of the new NATO states, like is now being considered for Poland? How do you know what talks are held behind closed doors? What we know for a fact, several NATO member states do participate in nuclear sharing and have US nuclear weapons stationed in their territory. In 2008 NATO declared Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Ukrainian politicians have called for nuclear weapons of their own LONG BEFORE the Ukraine war.

Of course they do. The US uses NATO to project Western influence. NATO was founded in the West to protect the West. To say the West projects its influence using NATO is no more "outrageous" than saying a Zebra has stripes.

That's the view of people like this juvenile Annalena Baerbock, who really should be running a kindergarten not Germany's foreign ministry. However, Ms Baerbock will not be around forever. Political views change, just look at Willy Brandt. Who knows what the future will bring. If we could predict it we will all be lottery winners, right candide?

NATO and Western Influence amount to the same thing. NATO is western influence incarnate and western inluence is exercised through NATO. Listen, there is no "good" and "evil" here. Neither America or Russia are "good" or "evil". This Old Testament way to look at the stuation is way too simplistic. There are perspectives. The Russians have theirs, informed by their need for security, and the Americans have theirs informed by their national interests. These only become good or evil depending on which perspective you choose. You for example choose to believe NATO propaganda. So for your Russia is evil. But Russia is not "evil". It is merely trying pursue its national interests, just like America.

I did not say in "every" NATO country, but American nuclear weapons ARE stationed in several NATO member states. Poland and the US are negotiating as we speak about Poland receiving US nuclear weapons. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/ Obviously the possibility of a country like Ukraine, that has in the past seen many calling for its own nuclear weapons, then also using "nuclear sharing" to arm itself is very real.

I heard that as well and the evidence of the corruption is very public. Yanukovych in particular was worth bililons, pocketing development funds. If the Ukraine ever becomes a member of the EU it will bankrupt and break up the EU for sure.

Very childish. Of course Russia is now taking the military option, but only after decades of trying to negotiate with the West. This failed, as Russia was only given lies and false promises. Then it became clear that soon Russia may be faced with a pro-American Ukraine armed with nuclear weapons pointed at Russia and a member of NATO. So yes, if diplomacy is not possible, what other option did Russia have to ensure its security? As for your claim that Russia deliberately targeted civilians, please post a link to the Russian directive or order that directs the Russian military to target UKrainian civilians? Oh you can't? Okay.

You are quite wrong, the Germans care very much about Nordstream. Only 2 days ago Gemany served Poand with an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national. A suprising way not to care about it, to launch a full scale investigation and issue an arrest warrant in Poland, don't you think? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvyz1472rpo Nordstream was already finished. Just the registration process was put on ice. Hungary et al still get gas from Russia. Following elections and the end of the Ukraine war it would be conceivable that Germany could revive the Nordstream project. The pipeline is aleady built. If the pipeline was not important, why did Ukraine go to all the trouble to build bombs, dive into the sea and destroy the pipes?

The Nazi jibe against Ukrainians always puzzled me. Because Russians really believed this. But you have to look at history, Ukrainians collaborated with Hitler, there were Ukrainian diviisions fighting for Hitler. So this notion of Ukrainians as fascists must have entered the Russian Psyche. However, it's not just history. the 1994–2014 period a radical right-wing party elected to the parliament as an independent organization within the proportional part of the voting: Svoboda in 2012. According to estimates, in 2008 Ukraine had a maximum of 2,000 organized skinheads. Then there's the radical right wing Ukrainian organization Patriot of Ukraine. There are three other extreme right wing organizations in Ukraine, Svoboda, National Corps and Right Sector. But by far the most dangerous goups are the right wing paramilitary groups such as the Azov Battalion. Some members are openly white supremacists. Just as in the Social-National Assembly of Ukraine. The list of Ukrainian Nazi organizations would include: Social-National Party of Ukraine (1991–2004) Ukrainian National Assembly (1990–present) Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (1992–present) Svoboda (political party) (2004–present) Social-National Assembly (2008–2015) Ukrainian National Union (2009–present) Right Sector (2013–present) National Corps (2016–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Ukraine But I would agree that this Nazi contingent is used as a pretext by Russia to justify the invasion. I do not see Ukraine as a particularly "Nazi" country. So this pretext was not fully truhful, yes. I do not support Putin or Russia. I support the west. However, my support is qualified by the truth. And I can understand why Russia got to the point of invading Ukraine, and our own Western politicians were to blame for this. Telling the truth here is supporting the West because we should not suffer such incompetence again. The war in UKraine is not good for the West, and costing us billions.

To equate Russia today with Nazi Germay today is childish and laughable. And of course Nordstream AG was only 51% ownd by Russia, the rest was owned by Germany, Netherlands and France. Nordstream went through German territory and was considerd "critical infrastructure". By destroying it the Ukrainians could have triggered Article 5 of NATO. Or article 4. The Germans themselves considered it, but as always, had to follow American directions. Much like Britain, France, Austrlia etc. Russia does not want to be lke this. Russia is a proud and powerful country, and will fight to remain autonomous.

My dear Nownow, Russia did not choose the military option. Russia chose to neogtiate with America. Sadly Americans spoke with forked tongue. They lied and deceived Russia regarding the true intentions of NATO. For decades Russia had drawn a line in the sand and made clear that NATO eastwards expansion was unacceptable due to security concerns. For decades the West ignored Russia and lied to her. Faced with the real possibility of nuclear armed Ukraine as a member of NATO on its very borders Russia had to face reality. It was either fight for security or be encircled by NATO who as policy puts US nuclear weapons in its member states. Russia did not choose this of course. Do you think Russia wants war and to see the cream of its youth perish yet again? Its resources squandered? Why would Russia do this, unless it had no other option?

Well, Russia suffered the communist delusion and also years of WWII which it had to fight almost singlehandedly, losing 20 million people in the process. So those were not great foundations. However, anyone who thinks Russia has no soft-power just has to read the countless books on how Russia made the 20th century, from ballet to modern art to film, medicine, technology, Russia's cultural significance is tremendous. I remember some of my smartest Oxford friends being very attracted to learn Russian. And which country has the soft power of the United States? Germay, Britain and France don't. China hardly does. The US is alone in this regard. It is completely false though to say that Putin has not developed his country. Russia's economy currently is enjoying boom times. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

We know the reason for Ukraine, we both agree on it.

No, the Nordstream pipeline was owned byNordstream AG, where German, dutch and French companies were part-owners, with those companies being in turn part-owned by their respective states. The Nordstream pipeline went through German territory. German officials temselves have protested that Ukraine's sabotage of Nordstream was grounds to trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty. "Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position. 'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments. 'But our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report Not how Nordstream was described by the Germans as "critical infrastructure", so even article 4 could have been invoked. Germany obviously did not due American interest in supporting Ukraine, despite this sabotage.

You didn't "disprove" anything. In fact you proved my point for me. You claimed the Turkey veto against Finlnd and Sweden was evdidence the US had no undue influence. But remind me again, how did Turkey come around? The US promising to supply F16 fighters and other perks? So you proved my point, Brian no? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2 Your little truth bomb blew up in your face

The attack on Nordstream was an attack on a pipeline that runs through German territory. Nordstream AG was part-owend by German, French and Dutch companies where the sharholder was in part their respective states. This is why German officials were outraged and said that this attack could trigger article 5 of NATO. "Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position." 'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c So much for "nobody in the world except the Kremlin" would think article 5 could be triggered by the Ukrainian sabotage. Again, at least you tried, ChicagoExpat. Well done. But failed again.

Lol, if you think NATO membership is solely decided by votes you probably never heard of the fact that countries hold talks before crucial votes to ensure the votes go their way. The US provides the main military muscle and the bulk of financial funding for NATO, they have a vested interested what happens with NATO. By the time the vote happens the US would have long ensured it goes the way it wants. Why do you think when Ukraine sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline, something which German officials protested could trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty, we never saw article 5 triggered? Because Germany has to fall in line with what the US wants in terms of foreign policy, even to the extreme of abandoning its own self interest. It's very sad to see a once proud nation like Germany humiliated by America in this way. https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html And please tell us all how Turkey came around to support Finnish and Swedish NATO membership? By being leaned on by the USA who promised Turkey F16 fighters and other perks, no? Thank you for proving my point, BKK Brian https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2

I made it especially clear for you transam, because I know you need it spelled it out, I put it in bold for you. Because NATO decides who becomes a member

Their own fearful minds. If they had bothered to look for one second at the size of Russia's economy, which is smaller than Texas' economy, they would quickly have realised that the notion that Putin would attack Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Finland, Sweden etc is about as realistic as Thailand conquering Asia. Maybe they fell for their own Atlantic Council propaganda, they twist Putin's words on their website to imply Putin wants to revive Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous frankly. Russia can barely defeat Ukraine, which is one tenth of the size economically of Russia. Much less all of Euope. It's really preposterous.

That's nonsense because Putin already lives under the threat of assassination every day, uses body doubles and this has not deterred him in any way. Besides, if the US were to assasinate Putin his successors could see this as an act of war and retaliate in kind, or even unleash nuclear war. America would gain nothing by assassinating Putin AFTER a nuclear bomb is used, except put its own country at risk of nuclear war. Again, Americans want to live. They will not risk a direct war with Russia, as you can see by the very careful avoidance by Biden to put American troops on the ground. Because a war with Russia would risk putting the US into a nuclear conflict with Russa, which could wipe out the entire USA and the planet. So Americans would have to be mad to assassinate Putin or use nuclear devices against Russia. And Putin knows that the US cannot retaliate if Russia uses a nuclear device in Ukraine. This is why Putin used his threat repeatedly. It is a credible threat and very much on the table. If Russia's territorial integrity and survival as a nation are threatened long term it is quite possible Russia will use a nuclear device. Even at the risk of India and China imposing sanctions, because survival and territorial integrity trump economic concerns in Russia

Lol, of course NATO members join of their own volition, who claimed otherwise? However, whether those members who want to join become members or not is up to NATO and above all the United States. Because NATO decides who becomes a member You cannot spin history this way and claim NATO did not expand, of course NATO did expand. Considerably. And that is the reason why Russia had to deal with this problem by force, because attempts to negotiate on this issue, and to get the US to respect Russia's interests failed and were met with lies and deception. So now Russia had no other option but to deal with the problem with the use of force. Just like the US did with Panama. As for Sweden and Finland, scared little boys but irrelevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Ukraine's attack on Nordstream was an atack on a NATO member. Not only does the pipeline pass throug German territory, but Nordstream AG is partly owned by German, Dutch and French companies with their respective states as shareholder. In addition the attack compromised Germany's energy supply and therefore national security. German officials at the time protested that Ukraine's sabotage was sufficient to trigger article 5 of NATO. "Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position. 'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments. 'But our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash.' You can read the whole story, just uncovered by the Wall Street Journal, here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report That's ludicrous of course, because NATO has been expanding into Eastern Europe since 1999. NATO has been negotiating and promising new membership to a whole raft of countries, including Ukraine, in the last few years. Russia has long given up listening to Western promises regarding NATO expansion. When those promises were exposed as lies, obviously unfettered NATO expansion was just a reality Russia had to deal with. And it is doing so now. At least you tried, ChicagoExpat, well done. But sadly, you failed miserably.

True, we cannot look into Putin's head, however, the fact that Russia was completely misled and lied to about NATO expansion is incredibly well documented, you can find it all here: "The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 😎 shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, “this is genius!” Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – perhaps from being drunk – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact “lead to gradual expansion of NATO”;[1] but the actual American-written cable reporting the conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard Not only did Warren Chrstophe lie to Russia's president, he lied to history and tried to distort the record. As did James Baker, George Bush etc... Now, if Russia cannot trust the word of America's leaders, why would it be able to trust a piece of paper those leaders signed? America's leaders are liars. Contracts would have been completely pointless. If they don't keep their word why would they keep a contract? After all Russia signed the ABM treaty with the US and the US simply withdrew from it. Again, pointless

You will not refute it, because it is impossible for you, because it is the truth. Unlike others on here, I don't deal in dishonesty, all my informtaion is 100% accurate. That is why you will not refute it. Even if you tried, you could not.

Completely untrue, Ukraine was clamoring to be a part of NATO already in 2002. "Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002, joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in February 2005, then entered into the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO in April 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO I will not call you a liar, Lacessit, as you just did, but clearly your beliefs are not founded on a well-read knowledge of world affairs. It has been public knowledge that Ukraine has desperately requested NATO membership for quite some time, since 2002.