NATO summit

[toomuchtime_]

No, not a declaration of war on Russia if the Ukraine's membership was limited by certain factors.

Understand that giving the Ukraine full Nato membership would immediately activate Article 5, which would impel America to become actively and fully involved in stopping Russia's military actions against the Ukraine.

Now we should all understand, and hopefully that includes you?

Personally, I agree with the US and Germany that full membership should wait until the war is over, but once again, you misrepresent the facts when you say it would be a declaration of war against Russia. If all thirty one members of NATO voted to activate article five, it would mean they would crush Russian forces in Ukraine, not that they would necessarily attack Russia. In a sense, Ukraine's membership in NATO would be the best thing that could happen to Russia since it would end Russia's ambition to extend its empire to the west and since this war has been such a disaster for Russia, that would be a good thing.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And how Soviet missiles on Cuba or Iraqis WMD-program imposed a threat to America's security? Directly.

Again you try to change the subject which is that neither Ukraine nor NATO posed any threat to Russia's security.

 

[Silver Cat]

So that means don't attack a NATO nation; what's the problem with that? Are you saying you want to make it easy for Russia to attack its neighbors?

If back in 1962 the only choice the USA were: 1) to allow the Soviets keep their missiles in Cuba (and then attack the USA in 1963 and win the war) or 2) to start and win a nuclear war paying the price of say, twenty million killed Americans in 1962, the latter is definitely prefered choice. The war has it price but so is the peace.

If the minimal price of peace with Shanghai-block backed Mexico will be returning to the borders of 1821 year, and the possible price will be 'the final decolonisation of the Northern America' the nuclear war will be prefered by any reasonable American citizens.

Same way, if the price of NATO-prefered peace is twenty million of the Russians living in South-Eastern regions of former Ukraine and Naval Base of Sevastopol (with the possible price of final decolonisation of Russia) - the nuclear war if preferred by any reasonable Russian politician.

 

[Silver Cat]

Again you try to change the subject which is that neither Ukraine nor NATO posed any threat to Russia's security.

Of course they do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, I don’t have an issue with most countries being in NATO that already are.

However Ukraine has been too close to Russia for a long time. Their borders were drawn up by a Soviet dictator with the purpose of including Russians in it. I believe that is bullshit and the country’s lines should be redrawn to reflect those that live within it. Let the ethnic Russians areas join Russia or be independent. Let the Ukrainian areas be the new Ukraine.

Russia greatly fears an invasion by NATO from Ukraine, because there are no natural barriers between Ukraine and Moscow. No large rivers, mountains, etc. Russia has been invaded by Western Euro powers before, so this is something they fear. It doesn’t matter how you feel about it, they feel that strong about it and are willing to wage war over it.

Your entire post is pure bullshit. Before the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, ethnic Russians constituted only 17.2% if the population, and even if all of them wanted to break away from Ukraine, which is not the case, there were no districts in which they constituted a majority, so there were no "ethnic Russian" districts. And certainly this was none of Russia's business.

Even after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, relations between Russia and western Europe were warm and friendly. Russia and NATO ran joint military exercises together and had military to military contacts and planned counter terrorism strategies together and shared classified intelligence, and the Western European countries allowed their economies to become vulnerable to Russian actions, so there were no rational grounds for Russia to be afraid of a NATO invasion from Ukraine or anywhere else. This was a lie Putin promulgated to try to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There are far more ways to undermine a nation's security, than just overt invasion.

If the Chinese were to subvert the Canadian or Mexican government, and started placing their military technology in Canada or Mexico, with out actually invading the US, how would that actually undermine US national security?

Obviously, you have no idea how NATO works. NATO can't place any weapons in any member state unless that state requests it, and article five can't be activated unless all NATO members agree to it, so there was never any threat to Russia's security.

 

[Silver Cat]

Personally, I agree with the US and Germany that full membership should wait until the war is over, but once again, you misrepresent the facts when you say it would be a declaration of war against Russia. If all thirty one members of NATO voted to activate article five, it would mean they would crush Russian forces in Ukraine, not that they would necessarily attack Russia. In a sense, Ukraine's membership in NATO would be the best thing that could happen to Russia since it would end Russia's ambition to extend its empire to the west and since this war has been such a disaster for Russia, that would be a good thing.

From the Russian point of view, Crimea and Novorussia are parts of Russia, as well as Texas and California are parts of the USA from the American point of view. So, most likely, they will attack British and French nuclear bases with their nuclear weapons and then suggest all parties concerned simple choice:
a) sign a Russian-prefered peace or
b) evacuate cities and continue with a large-scale nuclear war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If back in 1962 the only choice the USA were: 1) to allow the Soviets keep their missiles in Cuba (and then attack the USA in 1963 and win the war) or 2) to start and win a nuclear war paying the price of say, twenty million killed Americans in 1962, the latter is definitely prefered choice. The war has it price but so is the peace.

If the minimal price of peace with Shanghai-block backed Mexico will be returning to the borders of 1821 year, and the possible price will be 'the final decolonisation of the Northern America' the nuclear war will be prefered by any reasonable American citizens.

Same way, if the price of NATO-prefered peace is twenty million of the Russians living in South-Eastern regions of former Ukraine and Naval Base of Sevastopol (with the possible price of final decolonisation of Russia) - the nuclear war if preferred by any reasonable Russian politician.

Full of lies and irrelevant, anyway. In the present case, neither Ukraine nor NATO posed any threat to Russia's security.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course they do.

There is no rational argument to support that statement.

 

[Silver Cat]

Your entire post is pure bullshit. Before the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, ethnic Russians constituted only 17.2% if the population, and even if all of them wanted to break away from Ukraine, which is not the case, there were no districts in which they constituted a majority, so there were no "ethnic Russian" districts. And certainly this was none of Russia's business.

The question of ethnicity in Ukraine is highly politicized and answers mostly depends on who ask them and how. For example, now in Russia-occupied parts of Ukraine almost everyone call themselves as ethnic Russians. More demonstrative is, say, the map of political choice. For example, the map of elections of 2010.

Blue regions (pro-Russian and pro-Hungarian) voted mostly for Yanukovich and red regions (pro-Polish) voted for Timochenko.

Even after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, relations between Russia and western Europe were warm and friendly.

Actually, they were not. The relationships between NATO and Russia were almost ruined after Clinton's unprovoked agression against Serbia and degraded after start of NATO expansion.

Russia and NATO ran joint military exercises together and had military to military contacts and planned counter terrorism strategies together and shared classified intelligence, and the Western European countries allowed their economies to become vulnerable to Russian actions, so there were no rational grounds for Russia to be afraid of a NATO invasion from Ukraine or anywhere else. This was a lie Putin promulgated to try to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

Russia had pretty good reasons to afraid NATO's aggression after their unprovoked, illegal and unjustful aggressions against Serbia and Iraq.
Anyway, it's not about intentions, it's about capabilities.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Ukraine joining NATO would be great, even 'partially' (with government held territories) and with limited commitments from the NATO allies.

But what the odds of what? Not too high, really.

Thats a likely resolution. Ukraine gets some territory back and then they go NATO.

 

[Silver Cat]

Full of lies and irrelevant, anyway. In the present case, neither Ukraine nor NATO posed any threat to Russia's security.

Actually, in the present case, NATO-backed Ukraine had killed thousands of the Russians. It's not that a reasonable person can describe as "not posed any threat".

 

[Silver Cat]

Thats a likely resolution. Ukraine gets some territory back and then they go NATO.

And then the Russians are going ballistic and burn down few British and French bases.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And then the Russians are going ballistic and burn down few British and French bases.

Then they become radioactive.

 

[MisterBeale]

Then they become radioactive.

Then we ALL become radioactive.

 

[Donald H]

America and some Nato countries trying to conceive of a deal for the Ukraine before the summit.

NATO powers in ‘frantic’ race to conceive Ukraine deal – Politico

The US is negotiating with the UK, France, and Germany on joint security guarantees for Ukraine, Politico reports

www.rt.com

Plainly it's not as simple as just making the Ukraine a member and even not just putting it in writing on paper!

But some action must be taken soon because Russia may be close to ready to march to the Polish border.

 

[Flash]

The Ukraine invasion has gone on long enough. The summit should agree to Ukraine joining NATO asap and tell Putin to fuck off out of Ukraine.

The war has gone on long enough and is dragging all of us down.

Russia will crumble and we will have peace again.

Enough is enough. The war we should be fightting is the climate change war.

Who gives a shit what you Eurotrash thinks?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Silver Cat]

Then we ALL become radioactive.

But then the Russians will take radioactive plains of Ukraine (and not only Ukraine) anyway. Actually, if we play this game foolishly - we can lose Alaska and California (say nothing about millions of American citizens). Do we really want it?

 

[Donald H]

To me, the frantic rush to give the Ukraine some sort of deal, is most likely America convincing Nato's powerful members to draw a line in the Ukraine that Russia is forbidden to cross.

My best guess is forbidding Russia from carrying out the much suspected turn by Russia to carpet bombing of Kiev, or some other.

Does anybody have any better guesses?

Keeping in mind the nuclear risk!

 

[ESay]

Thats a likely resolution. Ukraine gets some territory back and then they go NATO.

'Some territory', that is the main question. And what will be considered 'the end of the war'.