Understanding Putin’s Motivations Behind the Ukraine Invasion

[frank83628]

2 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Points to note:- NATO doesn't move, countries join NATO out of necessity to protect themselves from the monster that is Russia. 

Why are you so protective of an authoritarian regime that treats Ukrainians as second class citizens and rapes, kills, tortures, and is in the process of destroying every bit of infrastructure they can bomb, this says so much about your mindset and it's not nice!

so,  you invented a scenario that didn't happen ? yes or no. 

[Wobblybob]

Just now, frank83628 said:

so,  you invented a scenario that didn't happen ? yes or no. 

No. HTH

[RayC]

21 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Ok, easy question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

 

I can understand that Russia might perceive that to be the case but your easy question throws up numerous supplementaries. 

 

Does that perception justify Russia invading Ukraine? Should sovereign countries - such as Ukraine - be prevented from pursuing actions, which they consider to be in their best interests, in order to satisfy Russian sensitivities? Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland (with Kalingrad) share land borders and a host of countries share Black sea borders with Russia: Should these countries have been prevented from joining NATO? Should they now be forced to leave NATO? Do you think that Russia would be justified in invading any of these countries because of their perceived threat?

[rabas]

7 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

No, I don’t believe that Russia has the right to attack other countries for territorial gains. I don’t believe that Russia started this SMO for territorial gain. If that was the objective, they would have gone in with a much bigger force, not just the 200-300,000 troops. I believe their goal was to get Ukraine to the negotiating table and they actually succeeded. A deal was initialled by the Ukrainian side in Turkey. Sadly, this was scuppered by the US and UK. Anyone that has been following events closely would know this.

 

Now maybe you would have the decency to answer my question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

Let my bypass your military analysis as Putin's attempt to topple Kiev now lives in infamy widely recorded everywhere and broadly analyzed. [ref].

 

Not sure what Putin means by initialing. Usually, negotiators initialing documents does not signify agreement and can mean as little as these are the words discussed (official copy). Anyway, the negotiators don't usually sign agreements into effect. 

 

Proof: [ref] Lead negotiator Davyd Arakhamia stated in an interview on 24 November 2023 that in March 2022 the Russian delegation had promised Ukraine peace for refusing to join NATO, but that Russia had not given any security guarantees and the Ukrainian delegation did not trust Russia to uphold such an agreement.^[77][79][80] Arakhamia also refuted Putin's claim that Ukraine had signed any agreement in Turkey because the delegation did not even have the legal right to sign anything.

 

So, Putin misinfo again.

 

[rabas]

7 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Now maybe you would have the decency to answer my question. NATO expanding into Ukraine poses a major threat to Russia. Agree or disagree?

 

If you can precisely define 'threat' I will be happy to. 

[frank83628]

2 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

No. HTH

 the talks didn't happen because BoJo flew from the UK and put a stop to it, so no negotiations were done, meaning you invented that whole scenario!

[Wobblybob]

Just now, frank83628 said:

 the talks didn't happen because BoJo flew from the UK and put a stop to it, so no negotiations were done, meaning you invented that whole scenario!

This has been discussed many times and as many times it has been discussed it has been debunked, you either don't know what you're talking about or you are trolling. 

[transam]

8 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

This has been discussed many times and as many times it has been discussed it has been debunked, you either don't know what you're talking about or you are trolling. 

Just a "Red"....🤗

[Wobblybob]

Just now, transam said:

Just a "Red"....🤗

He brings the same argument to these boards on every thread thinking he'll get a different answer. 🥴

[transam]

Just now, Wobblybob said:

He brings the same argument to these boards on every thread thinking he'll get a different answer. 🥴

I know, he just has a fruitcake agenda...........🥴

[frank83628]

4 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

This has been discussed many times and as many times it has been discussed it has been debunked, you either don't know what you're talking about or you are trolling. 

debunked by who, you TDS tards on here? are you saying Boris Johnson did not fly out from the Uk and put a stop to the peace talks that were in the pipeline? because google will prove you wrong. 

you basically invented a scenario in you head that falls in line with your Trump bad, Putin bad  hysteria, that never happened, what a whopper!

[Wobblybob]

7 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

debunked by who, you TDS tards on here? are you saying Boris Johnson did not fly out from the Uk and put a stop to the peace talks that were in the pipeline? because google will prove you wrong. 

you basically invented a scenario in you head that falls in line with your Trump bad, Putin bad  hysteria, that never happened, what a whopper!

No Frank you are twisting a scenario to suit your fantasy-prone personality, in other words you are away with the fairies. Ukraine were never going to reward Russia with gifting them the Ukrainian land they have stolen, and the sooner you can come to terms with this the sooner we can all move on, try to live in the reality world like the rest of us. 😕

[frank83628]

6 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

Points to note:- NATO doesn't move, countries join NATO out of necessity to protect themselves from the monster that is Russia. 

Why are you so protective of an authoritarian regime that treats Ukrainians as second class citizens and rapes, kills, tortures, and is in the process of destroying every bit of infrastructure they can bomb, this says so much about your mindset and it's not nice!

as opposed to the US regime that invades and destroys countries 1000's of miles from their shores, kills 100000's of civilians, 

since when do you care about Ukranians? let me guess..feb 2022?  remember under Trump Ukraine was the 3rd or 4th on the world list for corruption, that swiftly changed didnt it, now the received billions in aid. you guys just flip flop back n dforth as the media tells you to...... 🐑🐑🐑

[Wobblybob]

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

as opposed to the US regime that invades and destroys countries 1000's of miles from their shores, kills 100000's of civilians, 

since when do you care about Ukranians? let me guess..feb 2022?  remember under Trump Ukraine was the 3rd or 4th on the world list for corruption, that swiftly changed didnt it, now the received billions in aid. you guys just flip flop back n dforth as the media tells you to...... 🐑🐑🐑

Whataboutery .....get a grip! 😕

[frank83628]

1 minute ago, Wobblybob said:

No Frank you are twisting a scenario to suit your fantasy-prone personality, in other words you are away with the fairies. Ukraine were never going to reward Russia with gifting them the Ukrainian land they have stolen, and the sooner you can come to terms with this the sooner we can all move on, try to live in the reality world like the rest of us. 😕

i'm not twisting anything, i was questioning what you posted earlier and proving that you'd made it up in your head and tried to post as facts

[frank83628]

12 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Whataboutery .....get a grip! 😕

yes, bob, and deflection on your part, just admit it, you made it up!

 

so was Ukraine in the top 5 for corruption before 2020 or during trump? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/world/europe/ukraine-corruption-military.html

 

you propagandised sheep bob, perhaps your login should be woolybob

[frank83628]

4 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

He brings the same argument to these boards on every thread thinking he'll get a different answer. 🥴

* truth

[Wobblybob]

6 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

yes, bob, and deflection on your part, just admit it, you made it up!

 

so was Ukraine in the top 5 for corruption before 2020?

Whataboutery! 

[Wobblybob]

8 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

yes, bob, and deflection on your part, just admit it, you made it up!

 

so was Ukraine in the top 5 for corruption before 2020 or during trump? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/world/europe/ukraine-corruption-military.html

 

you propagandised sheep bob, perhaps your login should be woolybob

Nice edit Frank, did you forget to insult me on your first attempt. 😕

[rabas]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

* truth

 

Not this one Frank.

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

 ..remember under Trump Ukraine was the 3rd or 4th on the world list for corruption, that swiftly changed didnt it, now the received billions in aid. you guys just flip flop back n dforth as the media tells you to...... 🐑🐑🐑

(note, don't care about Trump but do care about truth)

 

data from here:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2017

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020

 

Through that time, Ukraine's index was ~11-15 levels/countries better than Russia's and improved while Russia declined. Also note Ukraine was better than ~60 countries. 

 

year    rank ( of 180 countries, lower is less corrupt)

2020    122

2019    126 

2018    120

2017    130

2016    132

[Gweiloman]

18 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I can understand that Russia might perceive that to be the case but your easy question throws up numerous supplementaries. 

 

Does that perception justify Russia invading Ukraine? Should sovereign countries - such as Ukraine - be prevented from pursuing actions, which they consider to be in their best interests, in order to satisfy Russian sensitivities? Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland (with Kalingrad) share land borders and a host of countries share Black sea borders with Russia: Should these countries have been prevented from joining NATO? Should they now be forced to leave NATO? Do you think that Russia would be justified in invading any of these countries because of their perceived threat?

I take it that you agree in principle but with certain caveats.

 

The supplementaries you bring up sounds good in theory but as you well know, is a lot more complicated in real life. For eg, do you consider Cuba a sovereign country? If so, do they have the right to defend themselves? If so, do they have the right to choose their ally? I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. China will not set up a base in Cuba because this would be widely seen (although justified) as being provocative. That’s why diplomacy exists.

 

Ukraine had a pro-Russian government prior to 2014. Was the US right to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs? Before you deny this, think what could be a valid reason for US state officials, notably Nuland, to be there handing out cookies?

 

What was the FM of Lithuania, I think, Landsbergis or something like that, doing, addressing protesters in Georgia recently? Isn’t this interference, a clear violation of UN regulations?

[Gweiloman]

18 hours ago, rabas said:

Let my bypass your military analysis as Putin's attempt to topple Kiev now lives in infamy widely recorded everywhere and broadly analyzed. [ref].

 

Not sure what Putin means by initialing. Usually, negotiators initialing documents does not signify agreement and can mean as little as these are the words discussed (official copy). Anyway, the negotiators don't usually sign agreements into effect. 

 

Proof: [ref] Lead negotiator Davyd Arakhamia stated in an interview on 24 November 2023 that in March 2022 the Russian delegation had promised Ukraine peace for refusing to join NATO, but that Russia had not given any security guarantees and the Ukrainian delegation did not trust Russia to uphold such an agreement.^[77][79][80] Arakhamia also refuted Putin's claim that Ukraine had signed any agreement in Turkey because the delegation did not even have the legal right to sign anything.

 

So, Putin misinfo again.

 

I just want to address your first point. It is widely accepted by both sides that the current Russian force of about 50,000 troops is insufficient to takeover Kharkiv, Ukraine’s 2nd biggest city. Did you honestly think that Russia attempted to takeover Kiev with just 40,000 troops? Or was it more a considered threat to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table? Which it did, incidentally.

 

 

[Gweiloman]

18 hours ago, rabas said:

 

If you can precisely define 'threat' I will be happy to. 

If this is your stance, I can see that we won’t get anywhere with discussing this further.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

21 hours ago, rabas said:

If you can precisely define 'threat' I will be happy to. 

If this is your stance, I can see that we won’t get anywhere with discussing this further.

 

Propaganda and misinformation can't survive the light of day, clarity, definition, reasoning, and facts. They require the murky shadows of blurry soundbites to live. 

 

Thank you for clarifying where you stand.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I take it that you agree in principle but with certain caveats.

 

The supplementaries you bring up sounds good in theory but as you well know, is a lot more complicated in real life. For eg, do you consider Cuba a sovereign country? If so, do they have the right to defend themselves? If so, do they have the right to choose their ally? I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. China will not set up a base in Cuba because this would be widely seen (although justified) as being provocative. That’s why diplomacy exists.

 

Ukraine had a pro-Russian government prior to 2014. Was the US right to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs? Before you deny this, think what could be a valid reason for US state officials, notably Nuland, to be there handing out cookies?

 

What was the FM of Lithuania, I think, Landsbergis or something like that, doing, addressing protesters in Georgia recently? Isn’t this interference, a clear violation of UN regulations?

 

You have avoided directly addressing my questions regarding Russia's relationship with its' neighbours.

 

I agree with the principle of national self-determination, but am not so naive to believe that the effect on relations with other nations does not play a part in the decision making process.

 

The topic of conversation is Ukraine, not Cuba. In any event, whatever the rights or wrongs of US "interference" in Cuban affairs, a defence of 'two wrongs make a right' offers no justification whatsoever for Russia's actions in Ukraine.

 

You are wrong about the events in 2014 in Ukraine. The Maiden revolt against Yanukovych's pro-Russia government was not, as you imply, a result of US interference, but was fueled by Yanukovych unilaterally deciding against signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement; a measure which had been approved by the Ukrainian parliament, and a policy platform on which Yanukovych had stood for election in 2010. However, without wishing to sound like an apologist for Yanukovych, he was in a difficult position. Russia was opposed to the signing of the EU-Ukraine Agreement and had placed trade sanctions on Ukraine and issued threats against Ukraine - which culminated in the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass - in order to get the Ukrainian government to change its' stance. 

 

Re Landsbergis: Why shouldn't the Foreign Minister of a nation make public his views on international matters, especially where he believes that his nation's interests are involved? 

[frank83628]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

The topic of conversation is Ukraine, not Cuba. In any event, whatever the rights or wrongs of US "interference" in Cuban affairs, a defence of 'two wrongs make a right' offers no justification whatsoever for Russia's actions in Ukraine.

 

 

 

 

seems like you just brush off the US interference and focus on the end result..which was caused by the US interference. 

[RayC]

45 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

seems like you just brush off the US interference and focus on the end result..which was caused by the US interference. 

 

Ukraine has been a sovereign nation since 1991. That sovereignty entitles it to decide which countries it wishes to be aligned with. Ukraine chose the West (EU and NATO). Over the past 30+ years, Russia has continually tried to undermine Ukraine's ambitions to forge closer ties with the West, culminating in this invasion. The evidence for this premise has been outlined many times in this thread and others.

 

It seems like you start with the conclusion that everything is due to US interference rather than analyse the evidence and then reach a conclusion.