Could this be the beginning of Ukraine being a Nato protectorate like Kosovo?

[Sunni Man]

Putin just laughs at bozo Biden and his Nato nitwit pals.
He knows they are too disorganized and weak to stop him.
So he will continue his mission to liberate the Ukrainian people from the tyranny of the Zelensky criminal government.

 

[Flash]

Kosovo is a NATO protectorate??? I was under the impression it was an UN protectorate.

 

[alexa]

I think much will depend on the results of a planned push in the Donbas. There are various reports that Moscow plans a big offensive there and encircling of Ukrainian troops.

If they doesn't achieve their goals and suffer big losses, then escalation is highly possible. What form it can take, I am not sure, though. All depends on what weapons and on what scale the US and allies will be ready to provide for Ukraine's defence.

I trust you and others have heard that Putin is saying that there will be 'unpredictable' consequences if NATO continues to provide Ukraine with military hardware,

 

[alexa]

The Budapest Memorandum was not a NATO agreement. It allows the US and UK to provide security assistance. I have never argued that we were not within our rights to provide help to Ukraine.

If Biden sends US combat forces to Ukraine he can defend the decision under that agreement. A NATO presence has to be unanimous.

The question is, is that a wise decision? It hasn't devolved to that point for me.

For me, our interest in Ukraine extends only as far as this affects our NATO allies, not Ukraine particularly. To put that another way- if NATO Europe comes to us and says "Ukraine is part of Russia", we don't go to war with Russia over Ukraine. At that point, it's none of our business. Basically.

Ah yes, was listening to a lecture today where he said that Ukraine is not a country the US has a need to protect for its own interests so they should not have got involved. He believed that Russia was genuinely scared of NATO being in Ukraine due to the US some years ago saying Ukraine and Georgia would be accepted. He also mentioned that China is going to be one hell of a difficult situation to address (no details) and that Russia would have been on the US side in this but the US has thrown that away. The last thing I wanted to say is that you said in a previous post that Russia is saying "Russia is being attacked" You will know that Russia's given reason for using nukes if it believes Russia is going to be destroyed. Russia has nukes that it is pretty impossible for our censors to find. I think we should still be using caution regarding nukes. I also think Putin and the US think differently. It might have helped if the US had looked at how things were with Putin and not just thought he was an idiot but realized that if they did not pay attention and give him room, we all might be facing the unpredictable. Biden is saying regardless of threats they will continue to supply arms to Ukraine. Putin is not one for not standing his ground though of course he did not say what the 'unpredictable' response will be.

 

[para bellum]

The last thing I wanted to say is that you said in a previous post that Russia is saying "Russia is being attacked" You will know that Russia's given reason for using nukes if it believes Russia is going to be destroyed.

That's the whole concept of MAD. Nukes are for existential threats.

Russia says they have modified the policy to include first use of tactical nukes to "de-escalate" if they are losing in a conventional war.

Which is complete nonsense, obviously.

Things are not at that threshold by a wide margin, regardless of Putin's sabre rattling. The rhetoric about Russia under attack is so that Putin can claim emergency powers, imo.

Blaming NATO also gives him some excuse for the poor performance of Russian forces who were supposed to be able to roll right over Ukraine like a speed bump.

 

[Ringo]

 

[ESay]

I trust you and others have heard that Putin is saying that there will be 'unpredictable' consequences if NATO continues to provide Ukraine with military hardware,

Yes, I have heard this. What is your point?

 

[alexa]

That's the whole concept of MAD. Nukes are for existential threats.

Russia says they have modified the policy to include first use of tactical nukes to "de-escalate" if they are losing in a conventional war.

Which is complete nonsense, obviously.

Things are not at that threshold by a wide margin, regardless of Putin's sabre rattling. The rhetoric about Russia under attack is so that Putin can claim emergency powers, imo.

Blaming NATO also gives him some excuse for the poor performance of Russian forces who were supposed to be able to roll right over Ukraine like a speed bump.

I was just moved by the lecture I was listening to. His point was that the US was judging Putin's communication by their own. For example everyone is supposed to want democracy. Clearly Putin does not. I don't like Putin but what I understood after listening to this guy, who was speaking shortly before the war was that the US though understanding that Putin was apparently misreading them, did not try to get him to get the right picture. I also listened to the guy who worked with Obama cannot remember name but I think it begins with B. He did say exactly what I have said above. What came over from the lecture however was that the US was not taking the time to talk to Russia - at earlier stages when they knew he was misreading them. It was OK to them that that was happening rather than as I always understood was the situation that if you wanted to communicate with another country you need to find out how they think. This war should not have happened. Now we have Ukraine destroyed and an unknown number of civilians and fighters killed.

We always took the potential use of nuclear weapons far more seriously prior to the USSR breaking up. That we now are gambling with it is itself an indication that we have stopped taking it seriously. The bit about Putin saying Russia was being attacked and that Russia would use nukes if he felt Russia was in danger of being destroyed....my thinking was Putin is a man with a very big ego and has been humiliated in Ukraine. He threatens the US and the US replies to say it will not give in to any threats. Russia has nukes which can do a first strike. It is all a gamble. Is it worth it?

The US does not get involved in wars out of Charity. What is it getting from this? (Obviously to us the people the issue is people losing their lives and homes and having the right of self determination. ) I have noticed that when countries want a war that is always what they tell their citizens but the real reason is something else.

 

[Ringo]

The official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, said that foreign mercenaries who arrived in Ukraine, not being combatants and should prepare for long prison terms.
Since the beginning of the military special operation, Kiev has attracted about 7 thousand mercenaries from different states, currently there are less than 5 thousand of them left.
The largest group came from Poland — 1,717 people, about 1.5 thousand mercenaries came from the USA, Canada and Romania. The rest of the mercenaries came from the UK, Georgia, Syria.
Every hour in Ukraine, one foreign mercenary is killed

 

[Ringo]

Cynically, but all this notorious military assistance to Ukraine from the West is the sale of weapons on credit, for money that they will have to give back. And all the handshakes and shoulder slaps are entourage. Fight and die Ukrainian, and your children will pay your debts.
Being friends with the West is worse than enmity

 

[JWBooth]

Democrats worry Zelensky offered GOP key talking point

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to members of Congress on Wednesday and pointedly highlighted President Biden’s role in helping to stop the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, so…

thehill.com

MSN

If the stalemate becomes permanent, with Russia attacking civilian targets and Ukraine killing any target that presents itself to drone, artillery, anti tank missile or rifle .... is there any other logical outcome?

And would Putin dare to actually withdraw with nothing beyone a promise Ukraine will not join nato?

What happens if he resorts to chemical weapons?

Poland, pfffffft

Its a little early to speculate, and Ukraine may only constitute the lands west of the Dnieper river by the time this wraps up. As to the rest, including the chemical weapons nonsense, there is not enough accurate information available but we've been subjected to lies about their use before in Syria. The propaganda from all sides is so excessively extreme the an informed guess is impossible.

 

[Baron]

Democrats worry Zelensky offered GOP key talking point

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to members of Congress on Wednesday and pointedly highlighted President Biden’s role in helping to stop the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, so…

thehill.com

MSN

If the stalemate becomes permanent, with Russia attacking civilian targets and Ukraine killing any target that presents itself to drone, artillery, anti tank missile or rifle .... is there any other logical outcome?

And would Putin dare to actually withdraw with nothing beyone a promise Ukraine will not join nato?

What happens if he resorts to chemical weapons?

Are you talking about Kosovo, the capital of drug smuggling, organ harvesting, illegal weapon sells, money laundering etc. in Europe?
Indeed a great 'protectorate'!