Clear from day 1

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It was wrong for the US to invade Panama.

 

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?

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

IIRC Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

 

If anyone is paying a price, it is Russia.

 

* Inflation at 8.6%

* A pariah state

* An army that is a laughing stock. Ditto weapons. Riddled with corruption.

* No foreign investment, except maybe the Chinese. Good luck with that.

* Half a million dead. Human wave tactics.

* Gas market to Europe - gone. Oil market severely restricted.

* Primitive technological manufacturing capability. No-one knows if their    nukes will even work.

* A ruble no one wants, not even the Chinese.

* An ageing workforce of scientists and engineers.

 

Another 5 years of war in Ukraine, IMO Russia will be a failed state. Even if it stopped right now, it would take decades to rebuild to before 2022.

[Cameroni]

18 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

So the "brothers", the "one people"...all just empty words.... The willingness to kill your brothers because they don't want to do what you want. Got it.

 

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.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

Eh...?  

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Perhaps you can copy the relevant passage here. I cannot see anything that correlates to your assertion. It seems that it is you who is attempting to misrepresent. You've posted a link but no relevant statement. Please copy and paste the relevant passage here.

 

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.

[NowNow]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

 

You just made that all up...

You haven't shown any evidence of any 2002 'ties' whatever that means.

Also in the same post you jumped from ten to twelve times....pure hyberbole. You've shown that you aren't a poster to be taken seriously. Just a shill...

 

 

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

 

If anyone is paying a price, it is Russia.

 

* Inflation at 8.6%

* A pariah state

* An army that is a laughing stock. Ditto weapons. Riddled with corruption.

* No foreign investment, except maybe the Chinese. Good luck with that.

* Half a million dead. Human wave tactics.

* Gas market to Europe - gone. Oil market severely restricted.

* Primitive technological manufacturing capability. No-one knows if their    nukes will even work.

* A ruble no one wants, not even the Chinese.

* An ageing workforce of scientists and engineers.

 

Another 5 years of war in Ukraine, IMO Russia will be a failed state. Even if it stopped right now, it would take decades to rebuild to before 2022.

 

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

Edited August 11 by Cameroni

[transam]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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?

Are you smoking some dodgy stuff..........🤔

Your comparison should be with Russia & Hitler...😬

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

You just made that all up...

You haven't shown any evidence of any 2002 'ties' whatever that means.

Also in the same post you jumped from ten to twelve times....pure hyberbole. You've shown that you aren't a poster to be taken seriously. Just a shill...

 

 

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

[NowNow]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

Nice try, but post ALL of the relevant detail.

 

Quote

The position of Russian leaders on Ukraine-NATO relations has changed over time. In 2002, Russia's president Vladimir Putin declared no objections to Ukraine's growing relations with NATO, saying it was a matter for Ukraine and NATO.^[164] From 2008, Russia began stating its opposition to Ukraine's membership. That March, Ukraine applied for a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the first step in joining NATO. At the April 2008 Bucharest summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared that Ukraine and Georgia would someday join NATO, but neither would begin Membership Action Plans.^[165] At this summit, Putin called Ukrainian membership "a direct threat".^[166]

When Viktor Yanukovych became Ukraine's president in 2010, he said that Ukraine would remain a "European, non-aligned state",^[167][168] and would remain a member of NATO's outreach program.^[169] In June 2010 the Ukrainian parliament voted to drop the goal of NATO membership, in a bill drafted by Yanukovych.^[170] This affirmed Ukraine's neutral status and forbade its membership in any military bloc, but allowed for co-operation with alliances such as NATO.^[171]

The Euromaidan protests that ousted Viktor Yanukovych from presidential office attracted large numbers of Ukrainians in support of better ties with European countries.

In the February 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, Ukraine's parliament voted to remove Yanukovych. Soon after, while Ukraine was still a neutral country,^[172][173] Russia occupied and annexed Crimea. The following month, new Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Ukraine was not seeking NATO membership.^[174]

 

In August 2014, the Russian military invaded eastern Ukraine to support its separatist proxies. Because of this,^[175] Yatsenyuk announced the resumption of the NATO membership bid

 

[Lacessit]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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

Oh come on. The nuclear weapons were physically in Ukraine. You  think the Ukrainians could not have cracked those codes?

 

The Black Sea fleet has had to retreat from Sevastopol. Russian troops are terrorized by drones costing less than a couple of hundred dollars. To me, that says Ukrainians are quite ingenious people.

 

 

Edited August 11 by Lacessit

[Danderman123]

50 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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

And Russia didn't have many ICBMs. Most were and are Ukrainian.

[swissie]

Let's recall what happened after the Sowjet Union ceased to exist`.

- The promess not to expand Nato (diden't happen).
- The promess that tons of " western investment capital" will arrive in Russia. (negligeable, most of it ended up in former "eastern block countries).
- Western diplomacy making efforts to "isolate" Russia (keep them stupid, keep them poor).
Culminating in the remark of Barak Obama, reducing Russia to a "a local military/economic" power.
---------------------------------------
Before the war: The EU concluded that the Ukraine is not really fit to join the EU, as "Oligarchtum" and "corruption" is as rampant in the Ukraine as in Russia.

After the war: Who is going to pay for the rebuilding of the Ukraine. It's not going to be Vladimir. Who is left? The "west" of course, who else.
Will the Western Taxpayer be thrilled (after having paid for a war that the Ukraine was never able to win) to additionall pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine?

As a western Taxpayer, how much of your salary would you be willing to pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine?  

[Cameroni]

7 hours ago, NowNow said:

In 2002, Russia's president Vladimir Putin declared no objections to Ukraine's growing relations with NATO, saying it was a matter for Ukraine and NATO.^[164] From 2008, Russia began stating its opposition to Ukraine's membership.

 

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. 

 

 

[Cameroni]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Oh come on. The nuclear weapons were physically in Ukraine. You  think the Ukrainians could not have cracked those codes?

 

The Black Sea fleet has had to retreat from Sevastopol. Russian troops are terrorized by drones costing less than a couple of hundred dollars. To me, that says Ukrainians are quite ingenious people.

 

 

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.

 

 

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

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.

 

 

Tell me what use the launch codes are to Russia if the Ukrainians can simply drain the fuel out of the rockets.

 

The most recent news is that Ukraine is close to Kursk, which is as embarrassing as it gets.

 

Anyone who has dealt with Putin knows he lies like a pig in sh!t, and no agreement with him is worth the paper it is written on. If he gets the Donbas, he will be back for the rest of Ukraine. Count on it.

 

Quite simply, the Ukrainians are fighting for national survival. So are the Russians, but they don't realize it. Probably the Kremlin inner circle does.

[Cameroni]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Tell me what use the launch codes are to Russia if the Ukrainians can simply drain the fuel out of the rockets.

 

The most recent news is that Ukraine is close to Kursk, which is as embarrassing as it gets.

 

Anyone who has dealt with Putin knows he lies like a pig in sh!t, and no agreement with him is worth the paper it is written on. If he gets the Donbas, he will be back for the rest of Ukraine. Count on it.

 

Quite simply, the Ukrainians are fighting for national survival. So are the Russians, but they don't realize it. Probably the Kremlin inner circle does.

 

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.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, swissie said:

Let's recall what happened after the Sowjet Union ceased to exist`.

- The promess not to expand Nato (diden't happen).
- The promess that tons of " western investment capital" will arrive in Russia. (negligeable, most of it ended up in former "eastern block countries).
- Western diplomacy making efforts to "isolate" Russia (keep them stupid, keep them poor).
Culminating in the remark of Barak Obama, reducing Russia to a "a local military/economic" power.
---------------------------------------
Before the war: The EU concluded that the Ukraine is not really fit to join the EU, as "Oligarchtum" and "corruption" is as rampant in the Ukraine as in Russia.

After the war: Who is going to pay for the rebuilding of the Ukraine. It's not going to be Vladimir. Who is left? The "west" of course, who else.
Will the Western Taxpayer be thrilled (after having paid for a war that the Ukraine was never able to win) to additionall pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine?

As a western Taxpayer, how much of your salary would you be willing to pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine?  

 

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.

[zmisha]

On 7/31/2024 at 11:08 PM, swissie said:

From day 1 it was clear that the Ukraine could not win this war. Period!

The only question remains is, will the Russians stop at the western Ukrainian border or will they travel unopposed thru Hungary straigtht to Austria. Straight into the "heart of Europe". Unopposed by Hungaria as the Hungarians will not shoot at Russians.

That is the only question that remains.

 

Vladimir Putin has recently said that those people who seriously think that Russia want to fight against NATO are as stupid as a table. As a Z-Russian I agree with our shining leader. It would be really a crazy idea to fight against NATO which has 10x economic potential and 6x number of people (which means x6 number of soldiers).
So, Z guys would recommend you to stop watching your TV and internet channels too much. To do something not related to politics would be much better Idea.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

NATO did not "make clear" that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in 2008. A few voices stated support for the idea, but any decision to admit new member countries has to be unanimously agreed by the existing membership. When it came to Ukraine's accession, that was far from the case; France and Germany were lukewarm with their support to say the least. Moreover, by 2010 even the US's enthusiasm for Ukraine's accession to NATO had cooled and in that year, Yanukovych effectively dismissed the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. 

 

The bottom line is that until Putin's invasion of Crimea in 2014, there was little chance of Ukraine joining either NATO or the EU, and without Russian aggression since 2014 imo there would have been little talk today of Ukraine joining either organisation in the immediate future.

[Cameroni]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

And Russia didn't have many ICBMs. Most were and are Ukrainian.

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.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

NATO did not "make clear" that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in 2008. A few voices stated support for the idea, but any decision to admit new member countries has to be unanimously agreed by the existing membership. When it came to Ukraine's accession, that was far from the case; France and Germany were lukewarm with their support to say the least. Moreover, by 2010 even the US's enthusiasm for Ukraine's accession to NATO had cooled and in that year, Yanukovych effectively dismissed the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. 

 

The bottom line is that until Putin's invasion of Crimea in 2014, there was little chance of Ukraine joining either NATO or the EU, and without Russian aggression since 2014 imo there would have been little talk today of Ukraine joining either organisation in the immediate future.

 

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.

 

 

[zmisha]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russia possesses a total of 5,580 nuclear warheads as of 2024,[5] the largest confirmed stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world.

Russia thinks that it will win if Putin gets rid of Gorbachev's supporters in power and returns to targeting of the nuclear missiles at the US Cities as in the Soviet Union times. Otherwise, it will lose for sure.
America hopes that Russia will be exhausted by the war before Putin gets his hands on nuclear weapons. Russia, in turn, is confident that this will happen sooner.

[swissie]

Again:
"After the war: Who is going to pay for the rebuilding of the Ukraine. It's not going to be Vladimir. Who is left? The "west" of course, who else.
Will the Western Taxpayer be thrilled (after having paid for a war that the Ukraine was never able to win) to additionall pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine?
As a western Taxpayer, how much of your salary would you be willing to pay for the "rebuilding" of the Ukraine?

After the war, this will be the only "theme" making the headlines. 

[Seppius]

37 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

It's more than a thousand troops for sure, that's what Russia is saying, I have read and seen reports online that it is 2 brigades, so like 4000+, along with tanks and heavy weapons, also still advancing fast, 20 miles in now

[RayC]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I stand corrected. However, that "will" does not indicate "when".

 

It is not true to say that Ukraine was keen to join NATO before 2014. Undoubtedly, certain factions were but all major political figures in Ukraine were committed to a referendum on NATO membership and public opinion was lukewarm on the idea. Couple this with Franco-German antipathy to Ukraine's membership and Yanukovych's statement, the situation in 2010, if not 2008, was that Ukraine was not going to join NATO any time soon.

 

That Yanukovych disappeared was entirely his own fault. If he not looked to Russia but instead had signed the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement as the Ukrainian electorate mandated him to do, the Maidan Uprising would not have occurred.

[Enoon]

10 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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?

 

A feeble comparison.

 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is just as unacceptable, to me, as the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to me.

 

I would not have been disturbed if the forces that did that had been pushed back to their start lines.

 

I will be delighted when Russia has been pushed back to its start lines.

 

 

Edited August 11 by Enoon

[Cameroni]

28 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I stand corrected. However, that "will" does not indicate "when".

 

It is not true to say that Ukraine was keen to join NATO before 2014. Undoubtedly, certain factions were but all major political figures in Ukraine were committed to a referendum on NATO membership and public opinion was lukewarm on the idea. Couple this with Franco-German antipathy to Ukraine's membership and Yanukovych's statement, the situation in 2010, if not 2008, was that Ukraine was not going to join NATO any time soon.

 

That Yanukovych disappeared was entirely his own fault. If he not looked to Russia but instead had signed the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement as the Ukrainian electorate mandated him to do, the Maidan Uprising would not have occurred.

 

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.

 

 

Edited August 11 by Cameroni

[RayC]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I suspect that we have a different view of "when" might happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

You are just babbling. They thought they would take Kiev and install their people. No need to conquer the whole country by force. That didn't work out.

You have NO IDEA about the reality, you just babble on in a one sided manner, day after day.  I'm just pointing out exactly what was published in the Russian media. No independent Ukraine. Get that into your skull and stop writing nonsense.

Talking about nonsense....................................See the above.

You think just because the Russians changed the guy in the big chair in Kiev that the entire country would just say "OK" and carry on as usual with a different guy in charge?

"Published in the media". Seriously?