2 Russian stray missiles have just hit a farm in Przewodów on the Polish side of the Polish-Ukrainian border, killing 2 Poles. Nato Article 5?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ukraine was at least a decade away from joining NATO. They did not meet criteria and America said as much.

Sweden and Finland (2000 mile border with Russia) had no interest in joining NATO.

Then Russia started the war of choice under bullshit pretenses and is accomplishing exactly opposite of their geo-political goals.

NATO is quickly expanding. Russian economy is fucked as far as the eye can see, their prime workforce is running off west or is being used to fertilize Ukraine, their sphere of influence shriveled overnight.

Or as Trump called it - very smart .

Whether they were at least a decade, or that’s something you’re simply making up, or not is irrelevant to the signals being sent, especially after the West overthrew Putin’s puppet government in 2014 to establish their own hostile-to-Russia puppet government.

 

[AntonToo]

Whether they were at least a decade, or that’s something you’re simply making up

I don't suppose you have a head on your shoulder and could look things like that up, can you?

There was no consideration of Ukrane's membership into NATO at the time of invasion. Thats a FACT.

Aside from economic and social matters at very minimum NATO membership requires all border disputes of the applicant country to be settled, which would require from Ukraine to come to border agreement with...wait for it...Russia, who was occupying Crimea officially and eastern Ukraine unofficially.

There are no serious arguments for any sort of emminent threat to Russia to justify their invasion. NONE.

 

[AntonToo]

the West overthrew Putin’s puppet government in 2014 to establish their own hostile-to-Russia puppet government.

Pure Russian propaganda bullshit.

This ain't "the west", these are fed up Ukranians. A sight like this is every two-bit autocrat's nightmare and Putin shits his pants at the thought of this coming his way. Thats why he has a whole separate military and top-gear riot squads to squash exacly this scenario.

Ukranians were spilling their blood for their future, not "the west".

"The West" was busy working out a deal with Russia for Ukranian president to remian in power untill special elections in 6 months....except that shitstain President suddenly ran off to Russia and was expelled by Ukrainian congress for abandoning his office.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Whether they were at least a decade, or that’s something you’re simply making up, or not is irrelevant to the signals being sent, especially after the West overthrew Putin’s puppet government in 2014 to establish their own hostile-to-Russia puppet government.

The Ukrainian government was not overthrown in 2014. In response to massive protests to Yanukovych's efforts to prevent Ukraine from establishing stronger economic ties with Europe, the Ukrainian parliament and Yanukovych signed an agreement to hold early elections and then Yanukovych fled to Russia and the parliament formally removed him from office and new electrons were held.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't suppose you have a head on your shoulder and could look things like that up, can you?

There was no consideration of Ukrane's membership into NATO at the time of invasion. Thats a FACT.

Aside from economic and social matters at very minimum NATO membership requires all border disputes of the applicant country to be settled, which would require from Ukraine to come to border agreement with...wait for it...Russia, who was occupying Crimea officially and eastern Ukraine unofficially.

There are no serious arguments for any sort of emminent threat to Russia to justify their invasion. NONE.

“NATO promised Ukraine full membership in 2008, but without explaining how or when. Putin sees that promise as an ongoing threat to Russia.”

Ally, Member or Partner? NATO’s Long Dilemma Over Ukraine. (Published 2021)

NATO promised Ukraine full membership in 2008, but without explaining how or when. Putin sees that promise as an ongoing threat to Russia.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pure Russian propaganda bullshit.

This ain't "the west", these are fed up Ukranians. A sight like this is every two-bit autocrat's nightmare and Putin shits his pants at the thought of this coming his way. Thats why he has a whole separate military and top-gear riot squads to squash exacly this scenario.

Ukranians were spilling their blood for their future, not "the west".

"The West" was busy working out a deal with Russia for Ukranian president to remian in power untill special elections in 6 months....except that shitstain President suddenly ran off to Russia and was expelled by Ukrainian congress for abandoning his office.

Again:

”
Yet Victoria Nuland, mandarin in the neocon ranks of the foreign policy establishment and State Department, in 2013 boasted that the U.S. had spent more than $5 billion promoting pro-Western "civil society" groups in Ukraine since the end of the Cold War.

In 2014 the United States assisted, if not outright directed, a coup d'état against an elected government in Ukraine because that government wanted friendly relations with Russia—a larger neighbor with a shared history stretching back centuries. The Deep State could not tolerate that friendship. An infamous leaked call between then Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and former U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing helping "midwife" the February 2014 revolution can be heard here.”

Blame the Deep State for Carnage in Ukraine

The foreign policy establishment knew it was needlessly provoking Russia at every step along the way.

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[AntonToo]

Again:

”
Yet Victoria Nuland, mandarin in the neocon ranks of the foreign policy establishment and State Department, in 2013 boasted that the U.S. had spent more than $5 billion promoting pro-Western "civil society" groups in Ukraine since the end of the Cold War.

In 2014 the United States assisted, if not outright directed, a coup d'état against an elected government in Ukraine because that government wanted friendly relations with Russia—a larger neighbor with a shared history stretching back centuries. The Deep State could not tolerate that friendship. An infamous leaked call between then Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and former U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing helping "midwife" the February 2014 revolution can be heard here.”

Blame the Deep State for Carnage in Ukraine

The foreign policy establishment knew it was needlessly provoking Russia at every step along the way.

www.theamericanconservative.com

That's right, America has and will continue to support democratic reforms and organizations. We will not give up our ideals just because some autocrat somewhere doesn't like it.

In Ukraine, in Russia and in other countries. But in the end it's up to the people of those countries to make it happen.

Maidan was conducted for and by Ukranians.

If Russians want to rise up against their autocrat regime then we will also support their new government if it adheres to the ideals of an open democracy.

 

[AntonToo]

“NATO promised Ukraine full membership in 2008, but without explaining how or when. Putin sees that promise as an ongoing threat to Russia.”

Ally, Member or Partner? NATO’s Long Dilemma Over Ukraine. (Published 2021)

NATO promised Ukraine full membership in 2008, but without explaining how or when. Putin sees that promise as an ongoing threat to Russia.

www.nytimes.com

And? Where is the actual counter argument?

To join NATO Ukraine had to at very least settle territorial disputes with Russia, who has been occupying Crimea and eastern Ukraine since 2014. Do you get that?

There was zero eminent security threat to justify invasion (aside from it being an abject disaster for all Russian interests)

 

[toomuchtime_]

“NATO promised Ukraine full membership in 2008, but without explaining how or when. Putin sees that promise as an ongoing threat to Russia.”

Ally, Member or Partner? NATO’s Long Dilemma Over Ukraine. (Published 2021)

NATO promised Ukraine full membership in 2008, but without explaining how or when. Putin sees that promise as an ongoing threat to Russia.

www.nytimes.com

No, Putin sees that as aa threat to Russian imperialism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's right, America has and will continue to support democratic reforms and organizations. We will not give up our ideals just because some autocrat somewhere doesn't like it.

In Ukraine, in Russia and in other countries. But in the end it's up to the people of those countries to make it happen.

Maidan was conducted for and by Ukranians.

If Russians want to rise up against their autocrat regime then we will also support their new government if it adheres to the ideals of an open democracy.

America will do what is in America’s interests. If that means ginning up and funding “democratic” protestors to overthrow a democratically elected government in Ukraine that was too friendly with Russia, they’ll do that. If that means supporting a military dictatorship in Egypt or an oppressive, genocidal theocracy in Saudi Arabia they’ll do that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And? Where is the actual counter argument?

To join NATO Ukraine had to at very least settle territorial disputes with Russia, who has been occupying Crimea and eastern Ukraine since 2014. Do you get that?

There was zero eminent security threat to justify invasion (aside from it being an abject disaster for all Russian interests)

Where is your actual argument? You just keep saying the same thing without backing it up. “There’s no eminent security threat to Russia.” According to you. Whereas everyone else can see a pattern of behavior going back thirty years as NATO inches ever closer to Russia while promising that Ukraine will be a member, which would obviously be opposed by Russia.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, Putin sees that as aa threat to Russian imperialism.

No kidding.

 

[AntonToo]

Where is your actual argument? You just keep saying the same thing without backing it up. “There’s no eminent security threat to Russia.” According to you. Whereas everyone else can see a pattern of behavior going back thirty years as NATO inches ever closer to Russia while promising that Ukraine will be a member, which would obviously be opposed by Russia.

Imminent was the correct word, as in immidiate threat that requires immediate measures of LAST RESORT.

War of CHOICE was the other word used - meaning Russia was not forced, but elected this invasion, even though they had plenty of time to come to terms with Ukraine.

Why that choice? Because fundamentally Putin rejected the idea of a sovereign country called Ukraine and that left no space for any sort of compromise, no matter what time frame. Add that to Russians beliving their own myths about their millitary capacity and you have a bloody, disasterous invasion that has been directly counter to Russian interests.

THAT is the overarching reason for the war. Ukranians daring to have their own sovereign country instead of living under Putin's boot.


As far as NATO behavior - NATO is a defensive alliance and has NEVER threatened Russian borders in thirty years. Not once. For some reason you are ignoring that clear pattern.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No kidding.

Exactly, NATO was never a threat to Russia, but only to Russia's imperialist ambitions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Where is your actual argument? You just keep saying the same thing without backing it up. “There’s no eminent security threat to Russia.” According to you. Whereas everyone else can see a pattern of behavior going back thirty years as NATO inches ever closer to Russia while promising that Ukraine will be a member, which would obviously be opposed by Russia.

The pattern you are seeing is eastern European countries that have lived with the Russian boot on their throats clambering to join NATO because they hate and fear Russia, and Russia opposes allowing these countries to join because it lessens Russia's ability to terrorize these countries into complying with Russia's commands. There can be no moral justification for ceding to Russia's demands; even countries like Germany and France understand this now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Imminent was the correct word, as in immidiate threat that requires immediate measures of LAST RESORT.

War of CHOICE was the other word used - meaning Russia was not forced, but elected this invasion, even though they had plenty of time to come to terms with Ukraine.

Why that choice? Because fundamentally Putin rejected the idea of a sovereign country called Ukraine and that left no space for any sort of compromise, no matter what time frame. Add that to Russians beliving their own myths about their millitary capacity and you have a bloody, disasterous invasion that has been directly counter to Russian interests.

THAT is the overarching reason for the war. Ukranians daring to have their own sovereign country instead of living under Putin's boot.


As far as NATO behavior - NATO is a defensive alliance and has NEVER threatened Russian borders in thirty years. Not once. For some reason you are ignoring that clear pattern.

It’s not in question that this was a war of choice for Russia. Most wars are wars of choice, and yes, Putin does reject the sovereignty of Ukraine. That much has been obvious. He wants a client state as a buffer between him and NATO. Obviously. He’s not a good guy. But that doesn’t mean provoking him by overthrowing his puppet government and threatening to have Ukraine join NATO isn’t perceived as a legitimate threat to him, and it doesn’t mean that that doesn’t explain why he made the choice. And it doesn’t mean that provoking him is a good idea, or in the best interests of the United States or Ukraine. Putin can be bad, and provoking him can be bad.

As for NATO being a defensive alliance, please don’t make us laugh. Tell that to Serbia or Libya.

As for imminent vs. eminent: You’re the one who said eminent. I was quoting you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Exactly, NATO was never a threat to Russia, but only to Russia's imperialist ambitions.

In Putin’s mind they’re one and the same, and the US knows that and chose to provoke him anyway.

The same way the Chinese checking American imperialism in the South CHINA Sea would be perceived by the US as a threat to the US.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The pattern you are seeing is eastern European countries that have lived with the Russian boot on their throats clambering to join NATO because they hate and fear Russia, and Russia opposes allowing these countries to join because it lessens Russia's ability to terrorize these countries into complying with Russia's commands. There can be no moral justification for ceding to Russia's demands; even countries like Germany and France understand this now.

Some people agree with that there, some people don’t. Some people would obviously prefer to be closer to Russia.

 

[para bellum]

As for NATO being a defensive alliance, please don’t make us laugh. Tell that to Serbia or Libya.

Serbia and Libya were both authorized by UNSC resolutions.