Ukraine wants in to NATO

[Dogmaphobe]

Ukraine is nowhere close to the North Atlantic.

Should Mexico join a military alliance with China?

 

[struth]

Putin took no aggressive action because even the implied threat of NATO was enough to hold him at bay, despite Ukraine not being a Nato country, but more importantly, he was waiting for Trump to hand him the whole country. Its as simple as that. What do you think all their back room wheeling and dealing was all about? Why do you think Trump wanted those talks to be secret? Who knows how much Putin was willing to pay Trump to look the other way. Without the United States, NATO would eventually fall and crumble, paving the way for Russia to invade any country they thought they could take over. You're openly supporting a traitor.

haha but in reality trump never did…all he had to do was wait for his investment in the russian conspiracy hoax to pay dividends and have all the dembots eat up the propaganda and misinformation from shifty and msdnc…it paid off..xiden won, he invaded

 

[j-mac]

So you have no fear of a massive nuclear arsenal that can kill hundreds of millions? You think nuclear brinkmanship is the intelligent option?

No, I abhor weakness, which is what you frightened children project.

 

[krichton]

haha but in reality trump never did…all he had to do was wait for his investment in the russian conspiracy hoax to pay dividends and have all the dembots eat up the propaganda and misinformation from shifty and msdnc…it paid off..xiden won, he invaded

Right.....

He never did because he was talked down from doing so by ppl in his own administration who were heads and shoulders smarter than Trump, but by all indications, he would have left NATO in his second term, according to John Bolton.

 

[struth]

Right.....

He never did because he was talked down from doing so by ppl in his own administration who were heads and shoulders smarter than Trump, but by all indications, he would have left NATO in his second term, according to John Bolton.

maybe…we will never know.

He made NATO stronger, according to the head of NATO…and partners were paying up their fair share…so maybe not

by any count, putin wasn’t invading…that happened under obama and xiden’s watch…putin knew xiden was weak, and obama made the promise to be more flexible so it worked

you can. talk about all the world of, and could haves you want..but i prefer reality

 

[Death-Ninja]

Putin took no aggressive action because even the implied threat of NATO was enough to hold him at bay, despite Ukraine not being a Nato country, but more importantly, he was waiting for Trump to hand him the whole country. Its as simple as that. What do you think all their back room wheeling and dealing was all about? Why do you think Trump wanted those talks to be secret? Who knows how much Putin was willing to pay Trump to look the other way. Without the United States, NATO would eventually fall and crumble, paving the way for Russia to invade any country they thought they could take over. You're openly supporting a traitor.

Nope, he took no action because be fully believed Trump as he categorically stated his opposition to Ukraine in Nato, that he was deeply concerned with the super-highway of corruption out of Ukraine, particularly through the US senate, and such is precisely why Giuliani was in Ukraine, and they had the goods on the obscenely corrupt Biden, and his crack addict sonny boy!

You might recall that this is the precise point that the shit hit the fan, all of the ludicrous conspiracy theory perpetrated upon Trump and the American people by the fascist democrat's, along with the combined might of CIA/NSA, and of course the totally CIA locked down north American media was brought to bear, and "oh what have we here," a whistleblower emerges, and Trump and Giuliani are corrupt scumbags looking to fix and election and lets fucking impeach him!

Open your eyes and see truth before them, what transpires in Ukraine is a battle for nothing but cash and money laundering, in that conflict Putin wears the white hat, more or less.... Here,

FLASHBACK: Experts Warned for Decades That NATO’s Expansion Would Provoke Russia, Globalists Did Not Listen - Big League Politics

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding...

bigleaguepolitics.com

 

[Flopper]

NATO does not serve, just a "peace keeping and defensive role," it serves as an invasion force for the international bankers and the NWO globalists, it has SHOWN, it has no problem acting offensively, for the world's leaders who would then create political regimes and determine political policy for the planet. . . . cui bono?

Kosovo War​

". . . The NATO bombing campaign lasted from 24 March to 11 June 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from aircraft, ships, and submarines. With the exception of Greece, all NATO members were involved to some degree. Over the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions. For the German Air Force (Luftwaffe), it was the second time it had participated in a conflict since World War II, after the Bosnian War.

The proclaimed goal of the NATO operation was summed up by its spokesman as "Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back". That is, Yugoslav troops would have to leave Kosovo and be replaced by international peacekeepers to ensure that the Albanian refugees could return to their homes. The campaign was initially designed to destroy Yugoslav air defences and high-value military targets. It did not go very well at first, with bad weather hindering many sorties early on. NATO had seriously underestimated Milošević's will to resist: few in Brussels thought that the campaign would last more than a few days, and although the initial bombardment was not insignificant, it did not match the intensity of the bombing of Baghdad in 1991.

NATO military operations switched increasingly to attacking Yugoslav units on the ground, hitting targets as small as individual tanks and artillery pieces, as well as continuing with the strategic bombardment. This activity was heavily constrained by politics, as each target needed to be approved by all nineteen member states. Montenegro was bombed on several occasions, but NATO eventually desisted to prop up the precarious position of its anti-Milošević leader, Milo Đukanović.. . . "

Kosovo War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)​

On 29 May 2006 a US military truck that was part of a convoy in Kabul lost control and plowed into civilian vehicles, killing one person and injuring six. The surrounding crowd got angry and a riot arose, lasting all day ending with 20 dead and 160 injured. When stone-throwing and gunfire had come from a crowd of some 400 men, the US troops had used their weapons "to defend themselves" while leaving the scene, a US military spokesman said. A correspondent for the Financial Times in Kabul suggested that this was the outbreak of "a ground swell of resentment" and "growing hostility to foreigners" that had been growing and building since 2004.[192][193]

UK actions in early 2007 included Operation Volcano, Operation Achilles, and Operation Lastay Kulang. The UK Ministry of Defence also announced its intention to bring British troop levels in the country up to 7,700.[194]

On 4 March 2007, US Marines killed at least 12 civilians and injured 33 in Shinwar district, Nangarhar,[195] in a response to a bomb ambush. The event became known as the "Shinwar massacre".[196] The 120 member Marine unit responsible for the attack were ordered to leave the country because the incident damaged the unit's relations with the local population.[197]

During the summer, NATO forces achieved tactical victories at the Battle of Chora in Orūzgān, where Dutch and Australian ISAF forces were deployed.

The Battle of Musa Qala took place in December. Afghan units were the principal fighting force, supported by British forces.[198] Taliban forces were forced out of the town.

On 13 June 2008, Taliban fighters demonstrated their ongoing strength, liberating all prisoners in Kandahar jail. The operation freed 1200 prisoners, 400 of whom were Taliban, causing a major embarrassment for NATO.[199] By the end of 2008, the Taliban apparently had severed remaining ties with al-Qaeda.[200] According to senior US military intelligence officials, perhaps fewer than 100 members of al-Qaeda remained in Afghanistan.[201]

June 2009 brought Operation Strike of the Sword in Helmand.[202] It followed a British-led operation named Operation Panther's Claw in the same region, which was aimed to secure various canal and river crossings to establish a long-term ISAF presence.[203]

On 4 September 2009, during the Kunduz Province Campaign a devastating NATO air raid was conducted 7 kilometers southwest of Kunduz where Taliban fighters had hijacked civilian supply trucks, killing up to 179 people, including over 100 civilians.[204]

In December 2009, an attack on Forward Operating Base Chapman, used by the CIA to gather information and to coordinate drone attacks against Taliban leaders, killed eight working for the CIA.[205]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)#2006%E2%80%932009:_Escalating_war_and_NATO_build-up

Libyan Civil War​

". . From the beginning of the intervention, the coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[291][292][293][294][295] expanded to 17 states. Newer states mostly enforced the no-fly zone and naval blockade or provided military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by the United States.[286] NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (while keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed due to objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[296][297] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remained with coalition forces.[298]

In May 2011, when Gaddafi's forces were still fighting, and the result of the civil war was still uncertain, Putin and Dmitri Medvedev's Russian government recognized the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya as a legitimate dialogue partner.[299] On 9 June 2011, some negotiators from NTC arrived in Beijing to have negotiations with the Chinese government.[300]

In June 2011, Muammar Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam announced that they were willing to hold elections and that Gaddafi would step aside if he lost. Saif al-Islam stated that the elections could be held within three months and transparency would be guaranteed through international observers. NATO and the rebels rejected the offer, and NATO soon resumed bombardment of Tripoli.[301][302]

In July 2011, Saif al-Islam accused NATO of bombing Libyan civilians, including his family members and their children, under the false pretence that their homes were military bases. He also stated that NATO offered to drop the ICC charges against him and his father if they accept a secret deal, an offer they rejected. He thus criticized the ICC as "a fake court" that is controlled by the NATO nations.. . . "

First Libyan Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyone that actually tries to put forward the claim that NATO and the western powers aren't a thread to Russian, her allies their culture and their traditions? Especially after watching them put the economic squeeze on them? Certainly hasn't been paying attention to world affairs or how things work today. . . The west fully intends to conquer and completely integrate every last nation on Earth into a global technocracy.

Although NATO is a defensive alliance, there is nothing in it's charter that forbids offensive operations. Generally these operations have been justified with humanitarian reasons or defense of NATO members. NATO does not have to wait for war to reach members states; that is, they don't have to wait for nuclear missiles to be fired. The UN and US have nearly always maintained their military actions were either peacekeeping or defense. When the US invaded Iraq, the justification was the development of WMDs. When the US invaded Afghanization it was to prevent future terrorist attacks by denying a safe haven for terrorists.

Some times it is true that a good offense is the best defense.

 

[Rigby5]

Says Putler

The Ukraine is obviously corrupt.
The not only have been stealing billions of Russian oil/gas, but obvious paid Hunter Biden millions as kickbacks to bribe US politicians into giving billions in undeserved foreign aid.
The Ukraine is entirely at fault.
They illegally tried to join NATO, abused ethnic Russians, and were the ones who broke off negotiations.

 

[Rigby5]

Although NATO is a defensive alliance, there is nothing in it's charter that forbids offensive operations. Generally these operations have been justified with humanitarian reasons or defense of NATO members. NATO does not have to wait for war to reach members states; this is, they don't have to wait for nuclear missiles to be fired. The UN and US have nearly always maintained their military actions were either peacekeeping or defense. When the US invaded Iraq, the justification was the development of WMDs. When the US invaded Afghanization it was to prevent future terrorist attacks by denying a safe haven for terrorists.

Some times it is true that a good offense is the best defense.

Sure NATO members can use offensive actions when necessary in order to preserve justice, the POINT is NATO has always been unjust and criminal instead.
For example, the WMD claims about were Iraq were deliberate lies. Iraq has no nuke program at all and their chemical weapons were limited to mustard gas.
Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, who not only were the most honest government in the entire world, but were US allies since 1979, and offered to extradite bin Laden to any Moslem country like Saudi Arabia, where he already faced a death sentence.
The massacre of Qaddafi's forces was not only illegal and immoral, but resulted in his assassination and Libya being taken over by ISIS and al Qaeda.
NATO has had the worst possible result, and clearly is totally corrupt and harmful.
It is left over imperialism that we should have been trying to get rid of since WWI.

 

[MisterBeale]

they were allowed, they were in an alliance with the soviets

the ussr wasn’t allowed to bring nukes there though

i don’t see any plans to bring nukes to ukraine…in fact we took them all out and agreed to help defend them when we did decades ago

try again.

If that is your standard and benchmark? NATO should have never have been expanded. . . guarantees were given to Gorbachev, they were NOT to be allowed. Nor were they allowed to place missiles in any of the new NATO members, which they have, since talks about the unification of Germany occurred.

Why are you being so hypocritical and disingenuous, and not recognizing the Russians' legitimate interests? Is it your steady diet of biased information? Do you like having blinders on? Are you really this unaware of your bias, or are you a paid propagandist? I am not Putin supporter, but I do recognize, that there are two sides of every story, and it is the height of naivete' and backward thinking to believe folks are "evil." That is 19th century and childish thinking.

Clausewitz: War as Politics by other Means | Online Library of Liberty

Related Links: Clausewitz Subject Area: War and Peace Source: Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Col. J.J. Graham. New and Revised edition with Introduction and Notes by Col. F.N. Maude, in Three Volumes (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & C., 1918). Vol. 1. Chapter: CHAPTER I: WHAT IS WAR...

oll.libertyfund.org

War in Europe and the Rise of Raw Propaganda

By John PILGER Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened. Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially…

www.strategic-culture.org

". . . Setting aside the manoeuvres and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the UN voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:

+ NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missiles in nations bordering Russia. (They are already in place from Slovenia to Romania, with Poland to follow)
+ NATO to stop military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
+ Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.
+ the West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.
+ the landmark treaty between the US and Russia covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be restored. (The US abandoned it in 2019)

These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West. But who understands their significance in Britain? What they are told is that Putin is a pariah and a threat to Christendom.. . . "

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border​

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border

So what happenned?

nationalinterest.org

". . .Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

Indeed, as late as March 1991, the British were reassuring Gorbachev that they could not foresee circumstances under which NATO might expand into Eastern and Central Europe. As former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union recounted in March 5, 1991, Rodric Braithwaite, both British foreign minister Douglas Hurd and British Prime Minister John Major told the Soviet that NATO would not expand eastwards.

“I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding,” Major had told Gorbachev. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”

US, UK, France Promised USSR Not to Expand NATO East of Germany, Newly Discovered Document Proves

21 Feb 2022 - A newly discovered document provides more evidence that Western governments broke their promise not to expand NATO eastward after German reunification. Notes from a 1991 meeting prove that the US, UK, France, and Germany assured the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east. ...

www.transcend.org

". . The 2+4 negotiations were talks in 1990 that allowed for the reunification of Germany, featuring capitalist West Germany and socialist East Germany (the 2) along with the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France (the 4).

Chrobog’s comments in the notes, therefore, confirm that the Western powers had promised the USSR in 1990 that they would not expand NATO eastward after German reunification.

Further clarifying this fact, the document adds that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for countries east of Germany.. . ."

 

[struth]

If that is your standard and benchmark? NATO should have never have been expanded. . . guarantees were given to Gorbachev, they were NOT to be allowed. Nor were they allowed to place missiles in any of the new NATO members, which they have, since talks about the unification of Germany occurred.

Why are you being so hypocritical and disingenuous, and not recognizing the Russians' legitimate interests? Is it your steady diet of biased information? Do you like having blinders on? Are you really this unaware of your bias, or are you a paid propagandist? I am not Putin supporter, but I do recognize, that there are two sides of every story, and it is the height of naivete' and backward thinking to believe folks are "evil." That is 19th century and childish thinking.

Clausewitz: War as Politics by other Means | Online Library of Liberty

Related Links: Clausewitz Subject Area: War and Peace Source: Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Col. J.J. Graham. New and Revised edition with Introduction and Notes by Col. F.N. Maude, in Three Volumes (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & C., 1918). Vol. 1. Chapter: CHAPTER I: WHAT IS WAR...

oll.libertyfund.org

War in Europe and the Rise of Raw Propaganda

By John PILGER Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened. Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially…

www.strategic-culture.org

". . . Setting aside the manoeuvres and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the UN voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:



These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West. But who understands their significance in Britain? What they are told is that Putin is a pariah and a threat to Christendom.. . . "

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border​

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border

So what happenned?

nationalinterest.org

". . .Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

Indeed, as late as March 1991, the British were reassuring Gorbachev that they could not foresee circumstances under which NATO might expand into Eastern and Central Europe. As former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union recounted in March 5, 1991, Rodric Braithwaite, both British foreign minister Douglas Hurd and British Prime Minister John Major told the Soviet that NATO would not expand eastwards.

“I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding,” Major had told Gorbachev. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”

US, UK, France Promised USSR Not to Expand NATO East of Germany, Newly Discovered Document Proves

21 Feb 2022 - A newly discovered document provides more evidence that Western governments broke their promise not to expand NATO eastward after German reunification. Notes from a 1991 meeting prove that the US, UK, France, and Germany assured the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east. ...

www.transcend.org

". . The 2+4 negotiations were talks in 1990 that allowed for the reunification of Germany, featuring capitalist West Germany and socialist East Germany (the 2) along with the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France (the 4).

Chrobog’s comments in the notes, therefore, confirm that the Western powers had promised the USSR in 1990 that they would not expand NATO eastward after German reunification.

Further clarifying this fact, the document adds that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for countries east of Germany.. . ."

i never said they didn’t have a legit interest…i can certainly appreciate their concerns.

with that said that still doesn’t give them the right to dictate how another country operates…one that hasn’t done anything to them.

Putin’s interest here, is to expand Moscow’s influence to gain territory. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

 

[Death-Ninja]

i never said they didn’t have a legit interest…i can certainly appreciate their concerns.

with that said that still doesn’t give them the right to dictate how another country operates…one that hasn’t done anything to them.

Putin’s interest here, is to expand Moscow’s influence to gain territory. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Yes, just as it was Obama/Biden's interest in 2013/14 to sponsor coup that chased out the pro-Russian president, whom they promptly replaced with the pro-western Zelensky! In the battle of coup d' tat tit for tat's, the nod goes to Putin, as Ukraine is on his doorstep, not the USA's! Herein is the rub, Putin clearly was comfortable with Trump because Trump made no bones about NOT wanting Ukraine admitted into Nato, something the Obama/Biden backed Zelensky continuously ran at the mouth about! Obviously, there was a paradigm shift upon the "uhh" election of Biden, the obscenely corrupt Biden whom Putin knew from experience, looked upon Ukraine as his personal cash box, and here we are.... I keep posting link below, I think it would behoove folks to actually read it in its entirety,

FLASHBACK: Experts Warned for Decades That NATO’s Expansion Would Provoke Russia, Globalists Did Not Listen - Big League Politics

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding...

bigleaguepolitics.com

 

[struth]

Yes, just as it was Obama/Biden's interest in 2013/14 to sponsor coup that chased out the pro-Russian president, whom they promptly replaced with the pro-western Zelensky! In the battle of coup d' tat tit for tat's, the nod goes to Putin, as Ukraine is on his doorstep, not the USA's! Herein is the rub, Putin clearly was comfortable with Trump because Trump made no bones about NOT wanting Ukraine admitted into Nato, something the Obama/Biden backed Zelensky continuously ran at the mouth about! Obviously, there was a paradigm shift upon the "uhh" election of Biden, the obscenely corrupt Biden whom Putin knew from experience, looked upon Ukraine as his personal cash box, and here we are.... I keep posting link below, I think it would behoove folks to actually read it in its entirety,

FLASHBACK: Experts Warned for Decades That NATO’s Expansion Would Provoke Russia, Globalists Did Not Listen - Big League Politics

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding...

bigleaguepolitics.com

considering he didn’t take office til 2019…i think maybe your thoughts might be off.

obviously you don’t know much about the topic

 

[Death-Ninja]

considering he didn’t take office til 2019…i think maybe your thoughts might be off.

obviously you don’t know much about the topic

You are would be wrong about what I know about it, but you are correct about Zelensky, it was actually a guy named Poroshenko who was elected, and then later lost to Zelensky after some four or five years. Porsoshenko was the Obama/Biden guy, nonetheless Zelensky intensely lobbied for Nato inclusion....

 

[struth]

You are would be wrong about what I know about it, but you are correct about Zelensky, it was actually a guy named Poroshenko who was elected, and then later lost to Zelensky after some four or five years. Porsoshenko was the Obama/Biden guy, nonetheless Zelensky intensely lobbied for Nato inclusion....

yes, well Ukraine had applied for NATO membership in 2008…and been working towards it since then..so

 

[MaryL]

They fight aggression in nato countries only.
Get some facts.

That was my point.

 

[MisterBeale]

Although NATO is a defensive alliance, there is nothing in it's charter that forbids offensive operations. Generally these operations have been justified with humanitarian reasons or defense of NATO members. NATO does not have to wait for war to reach members states; this is, they don't have to wait for nuclear missiles to be fired. The UN and US have nearly always maintained their military actions were either peacekeeping or defense. When the US invaded Iraq, the justification was the development of WMDs. When the US invaded Afghanization it was to prevent future terrorist attacks by denying a safe haven for terrorists.

Some times it is true that a good offense is the best defense.

. . . and now you know why Russia is so upset and sees NATO as a threat. What is to say, some day, NATO doesn't just up and define Russia as a "threat," and start a "good offense," and a pre-emptive war? That is all I was posting to. . . You can spin those operations how ever you see fit, that is your right, and your prerogative, I do not deny you that, but those are the simple facts, NATO is NOT just a defensive entity, this is recorded history. SO? When folks whine about, "what does Russia have to be afraid of?"

Well? There you go, you said it yourself. If NATO one day up and defines Russia as a threat, what better staging area then. . . Ukraine? This is the thing that keeps, not only Putin awake at night, but all those in the Duma, that forced him and Lavrov to act. Most of the low IQ, low informed and highly propagandized readers in the west think it is this, "Hitleresque" Putin, that decided to act. .

Generally these operations have been justified with humanitarian reasons or defense of NATO members.

When in fact, it was the Russian state Duma that kept getting requests for help from the Dombas regions, and passed that recognition back on February 15. I remember reading some article from Reuters that Putin and Lavrov put them off, in favor of more negotiations with the West, knowing what the implications of recognition and moving troops in would mean. In the end, they had stake holders to please as well. Just like our politicians do.

So? Just as the west claims "humanitarian reasons," so too, they claim the same. But in the end, we need to ask of all these oligarchs, cui bono?

Scholz in Moscow: Recognition of 'LPR/DPR' could be political catastrophe

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said that Russia's recognition of "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk People's Republic" as independent entities could be a political catastrophe, according to an Ukrinform correspondent. — Ukrinform.

www.ukrinform.net

Official recognition of 'L/DPR' to constitute additional territorial claims on Ukraine from Russia – Maasikas

If Russia officially recognizes the so-called "L/DPR, " the Russian side will have additional territorial claims on Ukraine, Head of the EU Delegation to Ukraine Matti Maasikas has said.

en.interfax.com.ua

Ukrainian delegation initiates extraordinary consultations in TCG in connection with decision of Russia's Duma on so-called 'LPR/DPR'

The Ukrainian delegation in the Trilateral Contact Group (TCG) has appealed to the OSCE representative in the TCG with an initiative to urgently convene extraordinary consultations of the Group in connection with the decision of the Russian State Duma concerning the possible recognition of the...

en.interfax.com.ua

Recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics by Russia​

". . President Putin, alongside Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, signs decrees recognizing the independence of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics on 21 February 2022.

On 21 January 2022, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation announced on Pravda that its deputies would introduce a non-binding resolution in the State Duma to ask President Putin to officially recognize the breakaway Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.[286][287] The resolution was adopted by the State Duma on 15 February 2022 in a 351–16 vote, with one abstention; it was supported by United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, A Just Russia - For Truth and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, but was opposed by the New People party.[288][289]

On 21 February, the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, respectively Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, requested that President Putin officially recognize the republics' independence; both leaders also proposed signing a treaty on friendship and cooperation with Russia, including on military cooperation.[290] Concluding the extraordinary session of the Security Council of Russia held on that day, Putin said that the decision on recognition thereof would be taken that day.[291] The request was endorsed by the minister of defence Sergey Shoygu,[292] while the prime minister Mikhail Mishustin said the government had been laying the groundwork for such move for "many months already".[293] Later that day, Putin signed decrees on recognition of the republics; additionally, treaties "on friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance" between Russia and the republics were inked.[294]

Prior to the signing ceremony at the Grand Kremlin Palace, Putin's address to Russian citizens was made public, in which he stated, among other things, that "modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely, Bolshevik, communist Russia", and specifically blaming Vladimir Lenin for the separation,[295] adding that admission of Ukraine to NATO was "a foregone conclusion", that Moscow could not afford to ignore the threat of a nuclear-armed Ukraine, and he demanded that "those who seized and retain[ed] power in Kiev ... immediately cease hostilities", or face consequences.[296][297][298] With reference to the legally mandated decommunization in Ukraine that had begun in Ukraine in 2015, Putin said: "You want decommunisation? That suits us fine. But don't stop halfway. We're ready to show Ukraine what real decommunisation means for Ukraine."[298][299] The recognition decision was promptly condemned by the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the president of the European Council Charles Michel in identical statements on Twitter.[300][301]. . "

2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lesh]

The Ukraine is obviously corrupt.
The not only have been stealing billions of Russian oil/gas, but obvious paid Hunter Biden millions as kickbacks to bribe US politicians into giving billions in undeserved foreign aid.
The Ukraine is entirely at fault.
They illegally tried to join NATO, abused ethnic Russians, and were the ones who broke off negotiations.

Fuck you


Fuck Putler

Russia is far more corrupt than Ukraine Vlad

 

[Death-Ninja]

yes, well Ukraine had applied for NATO membership in 2008…and been working towards it since then..so

Impending Nato membership for Ukraine was a an absolute guarantee of Russian intervention, and more than a few well known diplomats and diplomatic historians warned of exactly what you see today if Nato continued its expansion, they began those warnings not in 2008, but rather all the way back in 1990/91! Biden getting elected was a paradigm shift from Trump and Putin knew exactly what was coming, this invasion was all but set in stone upon Biden's usurping the presidency!

That said, Putin still attempted negotiation by staging the invasion over almost 7-months, clearly looking for attention from the lost Biden government, and all they seemed to get in return was just more fascist democrat mocking derision, and scapegoating for events that everyone, most especially Putin, Biden, and Biden's fascist democrats all knew was total fucking BS! Now, Biden pretends to levy sanctions, whilst simultaneously refusing to sanction the one thing that might have served to deter Putin, and that because Biden needs Putin to help cement a new totally faux nuclear deal with Iran, so Biden may posture, and preen his psychopathic ass before a presumed worshipful base!

 

[Flopper]

Even if their levels of corruption and the frozen conflict in the Donbass makes Ukraine ineligible for NATO membership?

Adding Ukraine to NATO weakens the overall alliance instead of strengthening it unless you're one of those who believes it's possible to win a nuclear war.

Map of War in Donbass, Ukraine with numerical Superiority of Russian Tanks

If Ukraine had jointed NATO, it might have weaken the alliance but one thing is for sure, Putin's invasion of the Ukraine has certainly strengthen it.