14 minutes ago, tgw said:

I don't believe that.

After scoring that concession, Putin would have pushed his luck further.

Ukraine wants to be a NATO member because it felt threatened for decades. WITH GOOD REASON.

Russia's goal has always been to turn Ukraine into a puppet state, as stated above they tried by poisoning the president, ordering hits on key people, rigging elections, conducting false flag operations and provocations, etc.
This has been going on for decades.

At the end of the day, it was part of the Soviet Union, there is history there and the USA is miles away and of course will not get involved, so as I said, who loses, history repeats itself, especially when you want to put NATO close to ones borders, simple really.

8 minutes ago, tgw said:

you got the sides reversed. Putin is the one who - as he alleged himself - wants to get in and out quickly of Ukraine.

He will get in quickly, but won't get out, we all know that, his aim is to make sure there will be no NATO on his borders.

 

It was ok for the USA to go into Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of people on the pretext of there being weapons of massive destruction, yet there were none, let's not forget Saddam didn't have any nuclear weapons, the USA was always the threat, just have a look how many they have.

 

Anyways, whatever, I see things a little clearer IMO, each to their own.

5 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

He will get in quickly, but won't get out, we all know that, his aim is to make sure there will be no NATO on his borders.

 

It was ok for the USA to go into Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of people on the pretext of there being weapons of massive destruction, yet there were none, let's not forget Saddam didn't have any nuclear weapons, the USA was always the threat, just have a look how many they have.

 

Anyways, whatever, I see things a little clearer IMO, each to their own.

nope, it was certainly not OK for the USA to do what it did in Irak, not in my opinion, and a number of US leaders should have been tried for war crimes.

 

but this is completely different.

10 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

At the end of the day, it was part of the Soviet Union, there is history there and the USA is miles away and of course will not get involved, so as I said, who loses, history repeats itself, especially when you want to put NATO close to ones borders, simple really.

Hmmm....so if the Russians were to take over Ukraine, then they would definitely have NATO at their borders.  Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary....etc.  Your argument makes no sense. 

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Hmmm....so if the Russians were to take over Ukraine, then they would definitely have NATO at their borders.  Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary....etc.  Your argument makes no sense. 

especially as they already have NATO countries at their borders:

one is the USA in Alaska

and Latvia and Estonia share land borders with Russia.

Kwasaki you are entitled to your opinion even though it is complete nonsense.

 

Ukraine was no threat to Russia be it IN or OUT of NATO.

 

NATO is a organisation for DEFENCE of Member's territory - (thus Russia didn't want Ukraine to join).

 

The quickest resolution of these horrors will be if someone 'eliminates' the mad Putin in some way or other.

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Hmmm....so if the Russians were to take over Ukraine, then they would definitely have NATO at their borders.  Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary....etc.  Your argument makes no sense. 

What should make sense is that Ukraine should be neutral and be a buffer state between Nato and Russia.

 

12 hours ago, gargamon said:

Putin is getting old. Senility is obviously kicking in. With no controls on his power, and his finger on the button, the future of the EU and the remaining west-oriented former eastern European are in peril. 

 

Putin's goal is to reconstitute the former USSR. NATO countries are in his path, so this will likely grow exponentially.

 

Russia - Ukraine 2022 is the same as Germany - Poland 1938. Learn from history or be destined to repeat it.

100% correct unfortunately.  The disjointed EU, the toothless NATO did not react when the Russians took over Crimea in 2014 so Putin realised there would be not retaliation only worthless lip service with sanctions.  Plus Trump came along supporting Putin and what we have today is unfortunatly the result of spineless politicians who have no regard to history and the last mad man that created havoc in Europe.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

The one thing you forgot here, is that Iraq was a push over, Russia is a nuclear power, so the USA and others will not get involved militarily because the last thing anyone wants is a nuclear war and Putin is not the late Saddam Hussain. 

Putin only did it because he gambled there would be no retaliation.

 

If he had seriously thought there would be he would have never have done it

 

He wants to keep as far away from nuclear war as anyone else.

 

The "last thing" to come would be nuclear war..........the last resort

 

Losing half an army and not getting the Ukraine would not be anywhere near sufficient cause.

 

Just don't invade Russia, don't put troops on "unfriendly soil".......anything else is OK.

 

 

 

 

What do you mean "the toothless Nato" did not react? Ukraine is not a member of the alliance so why should they react? 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

The one thing you forgot here, is that Iraq was a push over, Russia is a nuclear power, so the USA and others will not get involved militarily because the last thing anyone wants is a nuclear war and Putin is not the late Saddam Hussain. 

Putin only did it because he gambled there would be no retaliation.

 

If he had seriously thought there would be he would have never have done it

 

He wants to keep as far away from nuclear war as anyone else.

 

The "last thing" to come would be nuclear war..........the last resort

 

Losing half an army and not getting the Ukraine would not be anywhere near sufficient cause.

 

Just don't invade Russia.......anything else is OK.

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Enoon said:

Putin only did it because he gambled there would be no retaliation.

Again, why should there be retaliation from Nato? Ukraine is not in Nato.

 

 

I see some really big patriots of big idiotic Russia here--national socialists in action.

1 hour ago, Excel said:

100% correct unfortunately.  The disjointed EU, the toothless NATO did not react when the Russians took over Crimea in 2014 so Putin realised there would be not retaliation only worthless lip service with sanctions.  Plus Trump came along supporting Putin and what we have today is unfortunatly the result of spineless politicians who have no regard to history and the last mad man that created havoc in Europe.

Crimea as well as the 2 separatist republics have a relatively good case for Putin "protecting" them, because 80 to 90% of their population is of Russian nationality. Had Putin just invaded these 3, there would be no war.

 

For some reason he decided to go full crazy ivan.

3 minutes ago, olfu said:

I see some really big patriots of big idiotic Russia here--national socialists in action.

don't worry, they are mostly trolls paid by Russia or useful idiots.

10 minutes ago, tgw said:

don't worry, they are mostly trolls paid by Russia or useful idiots.

I think most are maga alt right Americans that identify with strong man dictators might is always right rather than liberal western democracies.

There was the exact same movement before the US involvement in WW2, pro Hitler fascist isolationists like Lindbergh and Henry Ford.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think most are maga alt right Americans that identify with strong man dictators might is always right rather than liberal western democracies.

There was the exact same movement before the US involvement in WW2, pro Hitler fascist isolationists like Lindbergh and Henry Ford.

so it's option #2.

 

to be honest, Putin was doing all right until the invasion. he seems to have gone senile.

9 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I had thought that Putin was mostly about trying to revive the old Soviet Union in the hopes of regaining past glory.  But some suggest that his motives are much simpler:  it's about protecting his energy interests.

 

[To understand the Kremlin’s motivations in regard to its smaller, and relatively impoverished, neighbor, the key fact to know is that Russia supplies 40% of Europe’s heating-fuel supplies — namely, natural gas.]

[To get it there, Russia relies mostly on two aging pipeline networks, one of which runs through Belarus and the other through Ukraine. For this, Russia pays Ukraine around $2 billion a year in transit fees.]

[Russia is a petrostate and relies on oil and natural-gas sales for about 60% of its export revenue and 40% of its total budget expenditures. Any crimp on Russia’s ability to access the European market is a threat to its economic security.]

 

It's always about money and power, and Putin craves for both.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-m-a-former-moscow-correspondent-don-t-let-vladimir-putin-fool-you-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine-is-only-about-one-thing/ar-AAUbFJ3?ocid=wispr

 

 

Could be and probably correct at least to some degree. Unfortunately that is the same basic criteria any nation with significant clout applies and exercises.

9 minutes ago, tgw said:

so it's option #2.

 

to be honest, Putin was doing all right until the invasion. he seems to have gone senile.

I think main reason about this attack is money! Sactions not hurth oligarch's they just get much more money. Behind Putin is many billionare who make decision's whit him is he senile or not. Money has always rule this planet and it always will! If we not go back and start chance squirrel skins.

what I said before:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/02/24/we-need-as-much-stinger-and-anti-tank-weapons-as-possible-says-ukraines-defense-minister/

 

is it possible to launch a go fund me to buy javelins and stingers for Ukraine ?

9 minutes ago, tgw said:

so it's option #2.

 

to be honest, Putin was doing all right until the invasion. he seems to have gone senile.

Considering this a bit, yes some that are obviously just parroting Kremlin propaganda without blaming the Russian invasion on Biden are probably not coming from maga. 

All the talk is about border security.

The food bowl and commodities may play more of a part than stated.

BREAKINGChina backs Russia to resolve Ukraine crisis via dialogue

While Western countries unite against Russia, its neighbour China is less condemnatory.

In a phone call on Friday, China's President Xi Jinping told Vladimir Putin that China supports Russia in efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis via dialogue, Chinese state television CCTV reports.

The Ukraine-Russia crisis is posing a major challenge for China on many fronts.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447

Having listened to  quite a number of generally antagonistic interviews of Putin by western media over the last couple of years he has responded IMO very rationally in addressing the generic accusations of "blame" accorded to Russia in all and any scenario and at times accurately redirected similar such accusations.

It is undeniably sad that he has undertaken the step to undertake  this "Special Operation" which will cost lives and inflict  hardship on so many innocents but it can not be denied that this is the result of supercilious assumption that "Western" affiliation inferred superiority in diplomatic capacity to  dismiss any other genuine concerns.

If  nobody can understand the derived  logic that if  back in 2014 the Minsk Agreement was considered to be  the solution for Russian concerns yet since that time there has been quite deliberate avoidance by the Ukraine  Govt. as called and  token to zero acknowledgment of the fact by those very friendly to it that any confidence in verbal statements ,despite constant reminders via Putin and others, generated not a paranoid  comprehension but a confirmed comprehension of the reality presented by it.

In Putin's announcements of intent he outlined the terms in causation and I think has re-iterated  them since.

It is now only a matter of public conjecture as to a different situation as of now if instead  the (Alliance) had  pressured (S)Zelensky into ratifying the Minsk agreement .

Possibly it would have  made no difference except for the undeniable fact that it would have rendered Putin unjustifiable in such as current action. 

Or? as may are beginning to  contemplate....these helicopters landing bring insignificant  death when compared to the  profit  war  seems to  generate for the  few ???????

There are some inexplicables  in this  scenario that  defy  normal comprehension.

BREAKINGKremlin: Russia ready for talks with Ukraine on 'neutrality'

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says that Russia is ready for talks with Ukraine in Minsk, the Belarusian capital, official Russian news agency RIA Novosti reports.

But he said this would have to be about Ukraine declaring a "neutral status" - which would include "demilitarisation". Russia has all along wanted Ukraine to rule out ever joining Nato.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447

Posts have been edited for fair use policy.  You cannot quote more than the headline, 3 sentences and then a link to the remainder of the article.

5 hours ago, 2 is 1 said:

I think main reason about this attack is money! Sactions not hurth oligarch's they just get much more money. Behind Putin is many billionare who make decision's whit him is he senile or not. Money has always rule this planet and it always will! If we not go back and start chance squirrel skins.

The oligarch's have their money because of Putin and they get to keep their money because of Putin.  They have little choice but to support him.   

 

If you think bad things don't happen to people who don't support Putin, take a look at what happened to the richest man in Russia and head of Yukos:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2020/02/19/why-russias-one-time-richest-man-wont-see-a-penny-of-the-50-billion-putin-destroyed/?sh=14939bf63840

2 hours ago, Credo said:

The oligarch's have their money because of Putin and they get to keep their money because of Putin.  They have little choice but to support him.   

 

If you think bad things don't happen to people who don't support Putin, take a look at what happened to the richest man in Russia and head of Yukos:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2020/02/19/why-russias-one-time-richest-man-wont-see-a-penny-of-the-50-billion-putin-destroyed/?sh=14939bf63840

I am FIN and 2 my granfather has been in war against Russia and one's 3 brother die in that fight. In Finland we really know what is Russia and what happen there! If you live in country whitch have 1300 kilometer border  whit Russia you have to be intrested your neibor.

Is he destined to be a martyr for Ukraine?

 

In any event, used to be a comedian or not, he's a REAL great leader as opposed to the evil dictator in Moscow.

 

 

16 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Hmmm....so if the Russians were to take over Ukraine, then they would definitely have NATO at their borders.  Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary....etc.  Your argument makes no sense. 

From a strategic point of view, yes Russia's new borders have been brought closer to the NATO borders as opposed to the NATO borders being further expanded towards Russia's previously known borders, i.e. pushing forward to the threat after you have been warning them for years to back off.

 

In other words if you want to bring it on, here I am, let's not play games, a bit like a bloke yelling stuff at you on his side of the street, well you either cross the road and take it to him on his side or you wait for him to come to you, I know what I would do.

.