David1701
Well-known member
After an application to join NATO has been accepted, it can take about a year for the process to be completed. 2008 was 14 years ago...You need to read the Bucharest declaration of 2008. It says that NATO is in the process of inviting Georgia and Ukraine into the fold. Russia drew a red line in front of Georgia and Ukraine and said "look we didn't say anything in 1999 in the first round of Eastern Europe admissions in to NATO, or in the second round in 2003, but we're drawing a line here at Georgia and Ukraine are not going into NATO." Russia prove they were serious by immediately invading Georgia, then during the Obama Administration they invaded Ukraine and took Crimea, and now under the Biden Administration they've invaded Ukraine again. So what on earth makes you think that they're not serious? Russia has clearly stated their position, they have proven it by their actions, I don't see how anyone can rationally say that there's any ambiguity here.
Russia has no right to decide whether or not a different county will join NATO.
I didn't say that Russia's intentions were ambiguous.
Who is "they" here? If you mean NATO, then NATO does not invade; it defends.You don't think Russia might argue that they've never used Ukraine to invade western Europe?
The Western nations do not decide whether or not there is peace in Ukraine. That is between Putin and Ukraine.No I think he's the victim. On the one hand Russia is prepared to squash him like a bug, but on the other hand all the Western nations won't take peace for an answer. Zelinskyy is in the absolute definition of a no-win scenario.
It's not my attitude. Zelensky has said that one of his "red lines" is that Russia must withdraw at least to the boundaries that existed before Russia invaded (Crimea was not mentioned; so, presumably, he's given up hope of getting that back).If it were completely unacceptable to Ukraine then Zelenskyy would not have been saying as he has said several times that he's willing to engage in settlement talks with Russia. Don't project your attitude onto Zelenskyy because they're two different things.
The Azov battalion is not what I was referring to; I meant the civilians, including the Ukrainian government. The Russian soldiers have been taking civilians to "filtration camps", then interrogating them about their politics, amongst other things.There's a very good reason he calls them Nazis. Because they're Nazis. This is not a point concerning which there is any dispute at all! When left-wing kooks accused the US Army of being racist, they're being hyperbolic. But Ukraine literally has an entire battalion of certified Nazis. And believe me these guys are just as horrible as any Nazis who ever lived. Thankfully this battalion does not represent the entire Ukrainian army, but there's no excuse for having these guys around.
The fact also remains that, as evil as Naziism is, if the people who support it are not actually threatening other countries (and they weren't), then there is no excuse for invading to root them out. That is a matter for Ukraine itself.
War is horrible and both sides almost always commit atrocities, sooner or later. Revenge is very powerful motive, although that does not justify any evil actions taken by either side.It's widely reported that the Ukrainian Nazis have been shooting the genitalia off of Russian prisoners. It's also been reported that they've been shooting Russian speaking Ukrainians, who have been welcoming Russian troops into these largely Russian speaking areas as liberators. So you're welcome to take your pic the first casualty of war is the truth. I'm not believing anybody's propaganda at this point. We may not know the truth for decades.
What I meant was that predicting the "maximum death count" must consider future consequences of present actions, or inaction, not merely what is happening right now.If memory serves I believe you pointed out that thousands of Ukrainians have been killed. A lot of Russians have also been killed. If this is not the maximum death Road it's very close to it.
With respect, these are not very sensible questions...I don't agree with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But I'm not sure that your characterization is particularly useful either. If Russia were truly the bully that you would have us believe, why didn't they invade anybody in 1999? Why didn't Russia invade anybody in 2003? Russia drew this red line in 2008. It's now 2022. if Russia is being a bully they are the slowest bully off the line I've ever heard of.
Bullying takes many forms, not merely invading other countries; and, the timing of invasions is usually a very complex matter.
The red line that Russia (Putin, not the Russian people as a whole) drew, in 2008, was itself bullying. He had absolutely no right to tell Georgia and Ukraine that they were not going to be allowed to join a defensive alliance. He also had no right to say that he does not recognise Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as sovereign countries (that statement contains much menace, in itself, since they were previously in the U.S.S.R.).
He had no right to invade Georgia or Ukraine, nor to threaten Moldova (re. Transnistria), Finland and Sweden (re. joining NATO). Putin is a psychopathic bully, which means that, as long as he is in control, so is Russia.