If Ukraine loses the war and Russia occupies Ukraine, the US and Europe may not have a choice, but to go to war

[JohnDB]

Z was painted on Russian tanks to avoid friendly fire casualties ahead of the invasion. It has no political significance. Ukrainians also use Russian T-62 tanks and other Soviet-era Russian tanks donated by Eastern European allies.

Ummmmmm....hahaha that's some kind of spin you got going on there.

 

[hadit]

Why did Putin wait until Biden was president to invade Ukraine?

Because he knew Joe would let him.

It's funny to watch them dance and twist to get around that one.

 

[JohnDB]

It's funny to watch them dance and twist to get around that one.

But at the same time it is kinda funny to watch Putin sigh because nothing is going to plan with Ukraine. Three days? Easy to take over? Minimal losses? Increased economy? Stronger Ruble? Singing his praises? Not even a hint of a coup?

Yep....worked exactly according to his plans.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Why did Putin wait until Biden was president to invade Ukraine?Because he knew Joe would let him.

The only ones who want to “let him” [Putin] get away with this bloody invasion … are those who want to stop all aid to Ukraine.

Who are these people? Well, 70 U.S. House Representatives — all of them MAGA Republicans — voted for Trumpster Matt Gaetz’s amendment to the annual defense bill to cut off all military aid to Ukraine.

Of course if the war deadlocks with no further likely gains from either side — as casualties on both sides continue and both sides exhaust themselves — then a cease-fire will become possible, and then any U.S. Administration would do well to encourage a negotiated settlement.

The Biden Administration is certainly aware of this possibility. But because it wants to appear tough and not give false hope to Putin and his domestic opponents, because it wants to hold its newly motivated and strengthened NATO alliance together — as it has very successfully done to this point — it emphasizes that continued military and financial assistance “for as long as it takes” must be provided.

Trump had disrupted and demoralized NATO, and encouraged Putin to underestimate American and NATO’s willingness to stand up to any eventual invasion of sovereign Ukraine. Why did he “wait”? So long as Trump’s negative impact as President existed, Putin could afford to wait. Increasing European and American divisions served his interests.

 

[Silver Cat]

The only ones who want to “let him” [Putin] get away with this bloody invasion … are those who want to stop all aid to Ukraine.

Who are these people? Well, 70 U.S. House Representatives — all of them MAGA Republicans — voted for Trumpster Matt Gaetz’s amendment to the annual defense bill to cut off all military aid to Ukraine.

Of course if the war deadlocks with no further likely gains from either side — as casualties on both sides continue and both sides exhaust themselves — then a cease-fire will become possible, and then any U.S. Administration would do well to encourage a negotiated settlement.

The Biden Administration is certainly aware of this possibility. But because it wants to appear tough and not give false hope to Putin and his domestic opponents, because it wants to hold its newly motivated and strengthened NATO alliance together — as it has very successfully done to this point — it emphasizes that continued military and financial assistance “for as long as it takes” must be provided.

Trump had disrupted and demoralized NATO, and encouraged Putin to underestimate American and NATO’s willingness to stand up to any eventual invasion of sovereign Ukraine. Why did he “wait”? So long as Trump’s negative impact as President existed, Putin could afford to wait. Increasing European and American divisions served his interests.

It's not just about being Republican or Democratic. It's about being competent or incompetent. Competent guys clearly understand that killing some Russian infantrymen or destroying some their tanks can't increase safety of the USA. This "support of Ukraine" of yours is practically useless and potentially dangerous. What we actually practically need - is ability to fight and win a nuclear war against Russia. If we are talking not about practical things, but rather about our ideals, than this support of the corrupted, discriminative and abusive Neo-Nazistic Kievan regime is something that is definitely against our ideals.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

It's not just about being Republican or Democratic. It's about being competent or incompetent. Competent guys clearly understand that killing some Russian infantrymen or destroying some their tanks can't increase safety of the USA. This "support of Ukraine" of yours is practically useless and potentially dangerous. What we actually practically need - is ability to fight and win a nuclear war against Russia. If we are talking not about practical things, but rather about our ideals, then this support of the corrupted, discriminative and abusive Neo-Nazistic Kievan regime is something that is definitely against our ideals.

It should not be a Democratic vs. Republican issue. But it is what it is.

The “Kievan” regime is not “neo-Nazi” … anymore than the U.S. is fascist!

It is nationalist. The majority of Ukraine’s people want to be a part of Western Europe and not under the heel of backward corrupt Russian mafia-like rule. That Ukraine still suffers from corruption, that there are still many Ukrainian Banderite “sympathizers” is certainly true, but this is mostly a problem in Ukrainian political culture and interpretation of history, like the attachment of many U.S. Southerners to the old Confederacy.

As for corruption, some Ukrainian oligarchs (and most Russian-Ukrainian oligarchs) have already been pushed aside, and will not survive a Ukrainian victory. Economic integration into West Europe, though it will bring new challenges, will also help. A victory by Russia, on the other hand, could only bring a return of much more profound corruption and oppression.

(Of course the war may go on for years, or end in a “cold peace” more-or-less along present lines, with no victory for either side.)

Talk about “fighting and winning” a nuclear war is surely something discussed by our own “Dr. Strangeloves” in the Pentagon, but it is something I only have interest in opposing, as we discuss here how the public should view Putin’s invasion and this bloody war and how our “leaders” should deal with it.

P.S. Trump was a cunning and remarkably successful demagogue. But “competent”? No way.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[toomuchtime_]

It all depends on what you mean by winning. For the Russians, winning has seemed to have changed from controlling all of Ukraine to holding on to those parts of Ukraine it now occupies, and for Ukraine winning means driving the Russians out of all of Ukraine. Who is winning will be determined by Ukraine's ability to overcome the obstacle of the enormous Russian minefields.

If Ukraine cannot find a way to deal effectively with the minefields, then it would be fair to say, Russia is winning, but if Ukraine can find a way to go through or around the minefields to confront the Russian troops directly, then with it present superiority in armor and its new long range missiles and soon to come F-16's, the AFU should be able to clear large swaths of occupied land and perhaps even drive the Russians out of the east, which, of course, would mean Ukraine would be winning.

 

[Silver Cat]

It should not be a Democratic vs. Republican issue. But it is what it is.

That's because there are too many incompetent and/or corrupted Democrats. That's all.

The “Kievan” regime is not “neo-Nazi” … anymore than the U.S. is fascist!

That's why Democrats are incompetent. They don't want to know about reality. There is no anything like "High council of den-ggerisation and delatinofication" in the USA. Spanish language is not restricted for any public usage, N-ggers' music (like RAP and Jazz) isn't banned, the Government don't use terror battalions to suppress street protesters and FBI have no right yet for elimination of opposition leaders. If I thought that there is any realistic chance that the Democrats are really considering the Kievan régime as "democratic" - I'd prefer to fight against them with weapons.

It is nationalist. The majority of Ukraine’s people want to be a part of Western Europe and not under the heel of backward corrupt Russian mafia-like rule.

The majority of Ukrainian people want to be rich and safe. But the Kievan régime don't care about their wishes.

That Ukraine still suffers from corruption, that there are still many Ukrainian Banderite “sympathizers” is certainly true, but this is mostly a problem in Ukrainian political culture and interpretation of history, like the attachment of many U.S. Southerners to the old Confederacy.

No. The Russian speaking Jew like Zelenskiy, for sure hate and despise Ukrainian Nasi-collaborants. But he (as well as the most of Ukrainian politicians) loves money. The EU pay him (and other Nazi-Collaborants) for playing this game, as well as incompetent part of CIA pay to so-called ultranationalistes like Azov. The one who pays is the one who order the music. They could order any music and any banner, but this is what they do prefer.

As for corruption, some Ukrainian oligarchs (and most Russian-Ukrainian oligarchs) have already been pushed aside, and will not survive a Ukrainian victory. Economic integration into West Europe, though it will bring new challenges, will also help. A victory by Russia, on the other hand, could only bring a return of much more profound corruption and oppression.

(Of course the war may go on for years, or end in a “cold peace” more-or-less along present lines, with no victory for either side.)

Talk about “fighting and winning” a nuclear war is surely something discussed by our own “Dr. Strangeloves” in the Pentagon, but it is something I only have interest in opposing, as we discuss here how the public should view Putin’s invasion and this bloody war and how our “leaders” should deal with it.

You see, without opportunity of actually fighting and winning a nuclear war, the USA won't be able to escalate any conflict. And that means that Russia or China may win any conflict by simply raising the bets. Whatever they do, the USA won't commit a murder-suicide (which is stupid, immoral and useless).

P.S. Trump was a cunning and remarkably successful demagogue. But “competent”? No way.

His team is competent. At least it was able to keep the situation in Ukraine balanced.

 

[Batcat]

According to the cnn article, criminals, volunteer fighters and arms traffickers got their hands on the weapons. This happens in the United States as well. When it does, do you accuse the United States government of being corrupt or stealing the weapons, you fucking idiot! Oh wait, you probably do, nevermind.

When we give billions of dollars to a nation known for its corruption we should know where it goes. Perhaps since you are are most likely a democrat you will disagree since your party runs on corruption.

US has spent billions on Ukraine war aid. But is that money landing in corrupt pockets?

A special inspector general and House Republicans have called for more oversight of the more than $100 billion in aid sent to Ukraine.

www.usatoday.com

WASHINGTON – With more than $100 billion in U.S. weaponry and financial aid flowing to Ukraine in less than a year – and more on the way to counter Russia's invasion – concerns about arms falling into terrorists' hands and dollars into corrupt officials' pockets are mounting.

The special inspector general who has overseen aid to Afghanistan since 2012, and some House Republicans, warn of the need for closer oversight of the military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. The scale of the effort is massive. The $113 billion appropriated by Congress in 2022 approaches the $146 billion spent in 20 years for military and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, though the cost of sending U.S. troops there was far higher.

"When you spend so much money so quickly, with so little oversight, you're going to have fraud, waste and abuse," John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, said in an interview. "Massive amounts."

 

[JohnDB]

I think that by September there's going to be some changes in how Russia fights.

The current expenses for their SMO are very high....mobilizations and extra personnel cost money. Then there's all the munitions that have to be made and replaced....not to mention equipment and fuel.

So Russia has a much smaller economy and GDP than NATO combined.
Not to mention Sanctions...

Russia is also having to overhaul their banking system....(major banking overhauls are NEVER a good sign during economic hardships) Meaning that their war chests are either depleted or going to be very soon.

War has never provided a decisive victory for anyone ever. Economics do.
Eventually someone stops having the ability to wage war. By September Russia will barely be able to pay their normal sized military forces. (If they can then)

Not gonna be much longer for anyone. Either Russia pulls back to a smaller area and let's go of troops or they collapse financially. (War is expensive) Russia also has issues with Kazakhstan, Syria, and Africa. They need troops for these areas too.

So where does Russia pull back to? With a highly mobilized Ukraine with all kinds of new NATO equipment and more coming....where will Russia feel safe pulling back to?

 

[Silver Cat]

I think that by September there's going to be some changes in how Russia fights.

The current expenses for their SMO are very high....mobilizations and extra personnel cost money. Then there's all the munitions that have to be made and replaced....not to mention equipment and fuel.

So Russia has a much smaller economy and GDP than NATO combined.
Not to mention Sanctions...

Russia is also having to overhaul their banking system....(major banking overhauls are NEVER a good sign during economic hardships) Meaning that their war chests are either depleted or going to be very soon.

War has never provided a decisive victory for anyone ever. Economics do.
Eventually someone stops having the ability to wage war. By September Russia will barely be able to pay their normal sized military forces. (If they can then)

Not gonna be much longer for anyone. Either Russia pulls back to a smaller area and let's go of troops or they collapse financially. (War is expensive) Russia also has issues with Kazakhstan, Syria, and Africa. They need troops for these areas too.

So where does Russia pull back to? With a highly mobilized Ukraine with all kinds of new NATO equipment and more coming....where will Russia feel safe pulling back to?

That's what we call 'wishful thinking'. Russia allied with China and India is unbeatable economically.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's what we call 'wishful thinking'. Russia allied with China and India is unbeatable economically.

That's what we call "wishful thinking". Russia is not allied with Chine or India economically. They simply buy heavily discounted oil from Russia.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

That's because there are too many incompetent and/or corrupted Democrats. That's all.

That’s bullshit. You are just proving that all you see is Democrats bad, Republicans good. Democrats incompetent. Trump … a genius.

majority of Ukrainian people want to be rich and safe. But the Kievan régime don't care about their wishes.

And you do? And Russians do? And Putin does? The Ukrainian leaders are Ukrainians, and they care about their country more than anybody else. That doesn’t mean Ukrainian nationalists are always correct in their decisions, however.

i despise Ukrainian Nasi-collaborants. But he (as well as the most of Ukrainian politicians) loves money. The EU pay him (and other Nazi-Collaborants) for playing this game, as well as incompetent part of CIA pay to so-called ultranationalistes like Azov. The one who pays is the one who order the music. They could order any music and any banner, but this is what they do prefer.

More ignorant talk. Zelensky risked death and acted bravely. The Ukrainian people are diverse and overwhelmingly are NOT “Nazi-Collaborants,” whatever that is. That’s why they voted for Zelensky … overwhelmingly. After the Russian invasion they rallied … magnificently. Hundreds of thousands proved, even when the world thought they had no chance, they were willing to risk death to keep Putin’s soldiers out.

His team is competent. At least it was able to keep the situation in Ukraine balanced.

His “team”? Trump had no “team.” He just borrowed from here and there, shuffling top aides out as soon as they didn’t act as total “yes men,” and then brought in new less competent toadies. Most of our military men and State Department specialists are professionals, not “party partisans.”

Also, see my comment #524 on why Putin loved Trump dividing our nation and NATO — and so bided his time. By the way Putin still must hope Trump can somehow win in 2024!

 

[Silver Cat]

That’s bullshit. You are just proving that all you see is Democrats bad, Republicans good. Democrats incompetent. Trump … a genius.

I don't say that all Democrats are incompetent or that there is something bad about Democratic ideology (there is, but it doesn't matter now).

Trump’s team? Which team? He had no team, but borrowed from here and there, shuffled top aides out as soon as they didn’t act as total yes men, brought in new less competent toadies. Most of our military men and State Department specialists are professionals, not “party partisans.”

And there is a problem with some "professionals". Some of them are incompetent.

And you do? And Russians do? And Putin does?

Yes. Competent specialists always want to know what their target groups actually wish. It doesn't mean that they are eager immediately grant their wishes, but the clear understanding of the actual field situation is vital.

The Ukrainian leaders are Ukrainians, and they care about their country more than anybody else.

Actually no. Many leaders of Ukraine doesn't care about their country at all, and many of them are not Ukrainians.

That doesn’t mean Ukrainian nationalists are always correct in their decisions, however.

You say about "Ukrainian nationalists" as if you understand the nature of Ukrainian nationalism. But, looks like, you don't.

More ignorant talk. Zelensky risked death and acted bravely.

I didn't say that he is a coward. I said, that he wants money for himself, not the wealth for Ukrainian people.

The Ukrainian people are diverse and overwhelmingly are NOT “Nazi-Collaborants,” whatever that is. That’s why they voted for Zelensky … overwhelmingly. After the Russian invasion they rallied … magnificently. Hundreds of thousands proved, even when the world thought they had no chance, they were willing to risk death to keep Putin’s soldiers out.

No. Some of them risked for money, some of them risked because it looked like the lesser evil.

 

[Silver Cat]

The only ones who want to “let him” [Putin] get away with this bloody invasion … are those who want to stop all aid to Ukraine.

Who are these people? Well, 70 U.S. House Representatives — all of them MAGA Republicans — voted for Trumpster Matt Gaetz’s amendment to the annual defense bill to cut off all military aid to Ukraine.

Of course if the war deadlocks with no further likely gains from either side — as casualties on both sides continue and both sides exhaust themselves — then a cease-fire will become possible, and then any U.S. Administration would do well to encourage a negotiated settlement.

The Biden Administration is certainly aware of this possibility. But because it wants to appear tough and not give false hope to Putin and his domestic opponents, because it wants to hold its newly motivated and strengthened NATO alliance together — as it has very successfully done to this point — it emphasizes that continued military and financial assistance “for as long as it takes” must be provided.

Trump had disrupted and demoralized NATO, and encouraged Putin to underestimate American and NATO’s willingness to stand up to any eventual invasion of sovereign Ukraine. Why did he “wait”? So long as Trump’s negative impact as President existed, Putin could afford to wait. Increasing European and American divisions served his interests.

And you are still wrong. Sometimes, sending more weapons means nothing but useless escalation. Why Georgia doesn't need more American money and American weapon? Because they don't try to attack Abkhazia and South Ossetia anymore or discriminate the Russians. So, they prefer to make money and enjoy peace.
And Joe doesn't send enough weapon to really deter the Russians, but enough to provoke them to attack Ukraine. That's what we call stupidity and incompetence.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

And you are still wrong. Sometimes, sending more weapons means nothing but useless escalation. Why Georgia doesn't need more American money and American weapon? Because they don't try to attack Abkhazia and South Ossetia anymore or discriminate the Russians. So, they prefer to make money and enjoy peace.
And Joe doesn't send enough weapon to really deter the Russians, but enough to provoke them to attack Ukraine. That's what we call stupidity and incompetence.

Sorry, Silver Cat , but I’m afraid you are showing some ignorance about today’s Georgia. Georgia certainly needs American money — who doesn’t? — but it isn’t getting too many weapons because the present government there is too close to Russia.

The ruling party there has jailed and brutally isolated the now very sick pro-Western Georgian ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili. Saakashvilli was the brave and flamboyant leader of the Rose Revolution in 2003, and a close friend of Bush’s in 2008 when Bush and he were already pushing NATO membership for Georgia. We can probably agree that that NATO push was at least premature … and backfired badly.

The present regime in Georgia trades a lot with Russia (but still officially.seeks to join the EU). It is much less corrupt than before the Rose Revolution. It is a multi-party democratic Republic, but reportedly “backsliding,” still corrupt, culturally conservative and rightwing. The people of the country are probably more pro-Western (and more pro-NATO) than the ruling party. Perhaps some Trumpsters would like it there …

Georgia Pride festival in Tbilisi stormed by right-wing protesters

Up to 2,000 protesters stormed a gay pride festival, in a country where anti-LGBT prejudice is common.

www.bbc.com

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Correction: I think my comment above concerning U.S./ Georgian military relations was flawed. The U.S. & NATO still give military assistance to Georgia, whose troops earlier were sent in considerable numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a recent article on the subject:

Georgia Scheduled for More U.S. Military Assistance

Georgia has been approved for a risk-assessed payment schedule so it will be able to request and acquire vital military capabilities more easily, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said.

www.defense.gov

Also useful:

https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/89655#:~:text=The%20government%20condemns%20Russian%20aggression,of%20Ukraine%20in%20UN%20resolutions.

 

[José]

Originally posted by CrusaderFrank
Putin thought everyone agreed to a neutral Ukraine.

Then Putin is the biggest sucker who ever lived because the West decided Ukraine would be part of the EU and NATO in 1991-92 when Putin was still a nobody in Saint Petersburg and never gave up that idea.

All the turbulences and earthquakes Ukraine's democratic process went through, Orange Revolution, EuroMaidan, the protests, clashes and separatism in Eastern Ukraine (helped by Russia), the civil war and the russian invasion... Everything that happened in Ukraine during the last 30 years was already innevitable in 1991.

I know people don't like to read quotes very much, but please, Frank, read this one because it's practically the birth certificate of the war in Ukraine:

In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia formed the Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with NATO standards. Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony. In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

If you didn't realize the full meaning of the text above let me spell it out for you:

The decision to implement NATO's eastward expansion was taken in Italy, in November, 1991, 2 months before the formal dismantlement of the Soviet Union!!

Since the start of the war I've seen dozens of posters claiming that NATO expansion was a direct result of Russia's aggressions against neighboring countries, the consequence of russian imperialism (the SPAC toomuchtime is only one of the most prominents among dozens of others). When I see this sad spectacle of ignorance I shake my head and think about the human tendency of debate subjects they know nothing about:

How can anyone blame post soviet Russia for the West's decision to expand NATO taken in Italy 2 months before the creation of the Russian Federation!!

Even the most rabid Russophobes cannot rape the basic principles of logic, the laws of space and time. The actions of human beings or national states cannot be responsible for decisions taken before their birth.

If you want to criticize russian imperialism there's plenty of legitimate cases in History: the conquest of the Caucasus, pure, unadulterated russian imperialism and colonialism just like every inch of soil of the entire american continent.

I'm not in Russia's pocket.

I'm not in the West's pocket.

I'm not in anyone's pocket.

I have no problem calling russian imperialism russian imperialism when I see it in front of me.

What I will never do is create a parallel universe, complete with an alternative history of Eastern Europe where

Yeltsin bombed Estonia in 1995 after spending 2 years accusing Tallin of mistreating the russian population and provoked Nato's enlargement

in order to portray Russia as the aggressor.

This is what super patriotic american clowns do here everyday regarding post soviet Russia. When the history of Eastern Europe that happened outside their heads contradicts their narrative, instead of adjusting their narrative to History, they adjust History to their narrative.

I will never blame Russia for something the country didn't do. This whole post can be summed up by George Kennan's statement:

"No one was threatening anybody else."

The military encirclement of european Russia is a western policy older than the Russian Federation itself, and therefore, 100% gratuitous, unprovoked and, as we can see now, disastrously counterproductive as George Kennan was already warning the world almost 30 years ago.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Then Putin is the biggest sucker who ever lived because the West decided Ukraine would be part of the EU and NATO in 1991-92 when Putin was still a nobody in Saint Petersburg and never gave up that idea.

All the turbulences and earthquakes Ukraine's democratic process went through, Orange Revolution, EuroMaidan, the protests, clashes and separatism in Eastern Ukraine (helped by Russia), the civil war and the russian invasion... Everything that happened in Ukraine during the last 30 years was already innevitable in 1991.

I know people don't like to read quotes very much, but please, Frank, read this one because it's practically the birth certificate of the war in Ukraine:

In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia formed the Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with NATO standards. Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony. In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

If you didn't realize the full meaning of the text above let me spell it out for you:

The decision to implement NATO's eastward expansion was taken in Italy, in November, 1991, 2 months before the formal dismantlement of the Soviet Union!!

Since the start of the war I've seen dozens of posters claiming that NATO expansion was a direct result of Russia's aggressions against neighboring countries, the consequence of russian imperialism (the SPAC toomuchtime is only one of the most prominents among dozens of others). When I see this sad spectacle of ignorance I shake my head and think about the human tendency of debate subjects they know nothing about:

How can anyone blame post soviet Russia for the West's decision to expand NATO taken in Italy 2 months before the creation of the Russian Federation!!

Even the most rabid Russophobes cannot rape the basic principles of logic, the laws of space and time. The actions of human beings or national states cannot be responsible for decisions taken before their birth.

If you want to criticize russian imperialism there's plenty of legitimate cases in History: the conquest of the Caucasus, pure, unadulterated russian imperialism and colonialism just like every inch of soil of the entire american continent.

I'm not in Russia's pocket.

I'm not in the West's pocket.

I'm not in anyone's pocket.

I have no problem calling russian imperialism russian imperialism when I see it in front of me.

What I will never do is create a parallel universe, complete with an alternative history of Eastern Europe where

Yeltsin bombed Estonia in 1995 after spending 2 years accusing Tallin of mistreating the russian population and provoked Nato's enlargement

in order to portray Russia as the aggressor.

This is what super patriotic american clowns do here everyday regarding post soviet Russia. When the history of Eastern Europe that happened outside their heads contradicts their narrative, instead of adjusting their narrative to History, they adjust History to their narrative.

I will never blame Russia for something the country didn't do. This whole post can be summed up by George Kennan's statement:

"No one was threatening anybody else."

The military encirclement of european Russia is a western policy older than the Russian Federation itself, and therefore, 100% gratuitous, unprovoked and, as we can see now, disastrously counterproductive as George Kennan was already warning the world almost 30 years ago.

As always, a lot of words that mean nothing. The decision to "enlarge" NATO was taken by the former soviet states, and NATO wouldn't have been able to move eastward if the former soviet states didn't believe they needed protection from Russia. All of these former soviet states hated and feared Russia and for very good reasons, and that's why they wanted to join NATO. That's the whole story on NATO "enlargement".

A second point, which you don't seem capable of understanding, is that there is no rational basis in fact or logic for believing these states joining NATO would lead to an attack on Russia, so none of this presented a threat to Russian security. It did, however, place a huge obstacle in the path of Russian imperialism, and that is what Putin and the other Russian ultranationalists, and apparently you, are fuming about.