Is Russia just about to invade Ukraine?

[irie]

. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Given that Gemany, by proceeding with Nordstream 2 even after Russia's annexation of Crimea, actively encouraged Russia's ambitions, perhaps you would suggest what measures you consider that other European nations could have undertaken which would have dissuaded Germany from continuing with the Nordstream 2 project?

[Horse]

Also, what is worse than the situation right now?

Putin throws in nuclear weapons and the west retaliates.

[Hoonercat]

Thanks for asking. No I think NATO should have taken Putin seriously when he strongly objected to having a potential NATO member on a highly contentious border.

I am suggesting "The West" (which includes Germany of course) did little to object to Russia invading the Crimea.

As if it never happened. If that wasn't a green light for Putin to carry on with his stated plan then I don't know what is.

Like Yambol, I'm struggling to understand your stance here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the first post seems to suggest appeasement on NATO's part while the second suggests a more forceful response. Do you think the two situations deserved different responses? I agree with the second, but not sure what you expected from NATO in your first comment?

I don’t know either, I am not a politician. By “appeasement” you suggest I expected NATO to capitulate? No. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Also, what is worse than the situation right now? A prolonged proxy war with taxpayers money being pumped into arms supporting a copycat Russian style mafia oligarchy while at the same time plunging half the population into fuel poverty. Throw in the acceleration of the transfer of wealth into the hands of the super rich and you have a perfect storm.

The current situation could arguably be improved if the Earth was suddenly threatened by a giant asteroid strike. I’m not even kidding.

So basically, "NATO should have taken Putin seriously"
"In what way should they have taken him seriously"
"I don't know"
Maybe you could explain how NATO didn't him seriously?

And no, the mention of appeasement wasn't a suggestion if capitulation. Taking Putin seriously could mean either appeasement or a show of strength, I was merely asking which (if either) you had in mind.
As for 'our' politicians, there was plenty of dialogue before the invasion, but you appear to be blaming 'our' politicians for not being able to stop someone that you describe as a 'lunatic' from going to war.

[DEADPOOL]

Well this has taken a interesting turn.

We started off with my suggesting Putin was going to invade another country. Again.
Not a single person appears to agree, quite the opposite.
Then follows an extended period where I attempt to explain my reasonings which are universally criticised as the ramblings of a madmen.
It appears my reasoning is seen as irrelevant (weak/corrupt USA, Biden mafia involvement in Ukraine/China etc.)
Putin does actually invade and the criticism becomes "yeah but if you wait long enough, anything could happen"
Finally it is now somehow MY FAULT because I was not able to proffer a political solution.

Tough crowd.

[DEADPOOL]

. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Given that Gemany, by proceeding with Nordstream 2 even after Russia's annexation of Crimea, actively encouraged Russia's ambitions, perhaps you would suggest what measures you consider that other European nations could have undertaken which would have dissuaded Germany from continuing with the Nordstream 2 project?

I am sure with the benefit of hindsight someone will come up with a brilliant plan.

Too late now.

The underlying reason is political corruption and "government by proxy" where the world is now effectively controlled by global corporate interests and super rich asset management companies. These entities do not make decisions which benefit mankind, they are only interested in their own personal wealth and yet this too is being criticised as conspiratorial and not "on topic".

[Hoonercat]

Like Yambol, I'm struggling to understand your stance here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the first post seems to suggest appeasement on NATO's part while the second suggests a more forceful response. Do you think the two situations deserved different responses? I agree with the second, but not sure what you expected from NATO in your first comment?

I don’t know either, I am not a politician. By “appeasement” you suggest I expected NATO to capitulate? No. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Also, what is worse than the situation right now? A prolonged proxy war with taxpayers money being pumped into arms supporting a copycat Russian style mafia oligarchy while at the same time plunging half the population into fuel poverty. Throw in the acceleration of the transfer of wealth into the hands of the super rich and you have a perfect storm.

The current situation could arguably be improved if the Earth was suddenly threatened by a giant asteroid strike. I’m not even kidding.

So basically, "NATO should have taken Putin seriously"
"In what way should they have taken him seriously"
"I don't know"
Maybe you could explain how NATO didn't him seriously?

And no, the mention of appeasement wasn't a suggestion if capitulation. Taking Putin seriously could mean either appeasement or a show of strength, I was merely asking which (if either) you had in mind.
As for 'our' politicians, there was plenty of dialogue before the invasion, but you appear to be blaming 'our' politicians for not being able to stop someone that you describe as a 'lunatic' from going to war.

Well this has taken a interesting turn.

We started off with my suggesting Putin was going to invade another country. Again.
Not a single person appears to agree, quite the opposite.
Then follows an extended period where I attempt to explain my reasonings which are universally criticised as the ramblings of a madmen.
It appears my reasoning is seen as irrelevant (weak/corrupt USA, Biden mafia involvement in Ukraine/China etc.)
Putin does actually invade and the criticism becomes "yeah but if you wait long enough, anything could happen"
Finally it is now somehow MY FAULT because I was not able to proffer a political solution.

Tough crowd.

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you to clarify why you felt NATO didn't take Putin's objections seriously, and whether you felt NATO were being too confrontational or too weak (as not taking him seriously could mean either) regarding his objections to Ukraine joining NATO. I didn't say it was your fault for not coming up with a political solution, that's just daft.

[irie]

. I expected our politicians to come up with something that would not involve plunging Europe into war. Ask yourself what it is they actually did to mitigate the overt threat from a lunatic like Putin.

Given that Gemany, by proceeding with Nordstream 2 even after Russia's annexation of Crimea, actively encouraged Russia's ambitions, perhaps you would suggest what measures you consider that other European nations could have undertaken which would have dissuaded Germany from continuing with the Nordstream 2 project?

I am sure with the benefit of hindsight someone will come up with a brilliant plan.

Too late now.

[rant]

As soon as Germany went ahead with Nordstream 2 it was too late.

[DEADPOOL]

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you to clarify why you felt NATO didn't take Putin's objections seriously, and whether you felt NATO were being too confrontational or too weak (as not taking him seriously could mean either) regarding his objections to Ukraine joining NATO. I didn't say it was your fault for not coming up with a political solution, that's just daft.

You were asking me what do I think NATO (et. al.) should have done and I suggest they should have negotiated a political solution. That is what politicians do and if NATO aren't going to defend a non-NATO country by force then they too should have made efforts to avoid armed conflict.

Clearly the political process has failed.

I was merely asking which (if either) you had in mind.

Don't ask me, I'm just making observations on what has occurred and making suggestions as to why. It seems obvious to me that while Russia clearly is an oligarchy, robbing the country blind to make personal fortunes for their political accomplices, the USA are doing the same in Ukraine. The Biden mafia, Pelosi, in fact I wouldn't be surprised to discover many more US politicians with their fingers in that pie.

Apparently that has nothing to do with the war... Yeah right.

As soon as Germany went ahead with Nordstream 2 it was too late.

Can't argue with that, it certainly didn't help.

[Hoonercat]

I didn't ask you for a solution, I asked you to clarify why you felt NATO didn't take Putin's objections seriously, and whether you felt NATO were being too confrontational or too weak (as not taking him seriously could mean either) regarding his objections to Ukraine joining NATO. I didn't say it was your fault for not coming up with a political solution, that's just daft.

You were asking me what do I think NATO (et. al.) should have done and I suggest they should have negotiated a political solution. That is what politicians do and if NATO aren't going to defend a non-NATO country by force then they too should have made efforts to avoid armed conflict.

Clearly the political process has failed.

Again, I asked you in what way you felt NATO didn't take Putin seriously with regards to Ukraine joining NATO. That's a completely seperate subject to Russia invading Ukraine - in his speech attempting to justify the invasion, he made no mention of Ukraine joining NATO.

[DEADPOOL]

Again, I asked you in what way you felt NATO didn't take Putin seriously with regards to Ukraine joining NATO. That's a completely seperate subject to Russia invading Ukraine - in his speech attempting to justify the invasion, he made no mention of Ukraine joining NATO.

No it is not a separate subject. Not at all. In fact I think it is the entire reason for the invasion.

I do not take Putin at his word.

[Mussels]

Russia invaded Ukraine soon after Ukraine agreed not to join NATO so the argument about NATO being too close to Russia was rubbish. Russia wants weak neighbors it can push around and Ukraine was rapidly becoming a force to be reckoned with even without direct NATO membership.

[Hoonercat]

Again, I asked you in what way you felt NATO didn't take Putin seriously with regards to Ukraine joining NATO. That's a completely seperate subject to Russia invading Ukraine - in his speech attempting to justify the invasion, he made no mention of Ukraine joining NATO.

No it is not a separate subject. Not at all. In fact I think it is the entire reason for the invasion.

I do not take Putin at his word.

But western politicians failed in their duty to negotiate a peaceful solution with someone who's word you don't trust, and describe as a lunatic...
Read or listen to Putin's speech, he says that war with Ukraine was 'inevitable', as if to suggest he might as well do it now rather than later. It was going to happen regardless of negotiations.

Zelensky made a statement shortly after the invasion began aknowledging that NATO would never accept Ukraine, and stated that Ukraine would no longer press the subject. He also offered to make concessions over Donbas. Putin continued with the invasion regardless.

[DEADPOOL]

The Ukraine NATO veto is not true. Lots of words, no signed agreement. Same with membership of the EU which is effectively the same thing without a treaty.

I don't believe Zelensky either or at least I wouldn't take him at his word (niether would Putin). Although he was (?) an actor sponsored by a billionaire oligarch, he is no politician, Ukraine is a mini version of Russia.

Ok. "lunatic" is the wrong word. How about psychopath? Happy??

[irie]

... Ukraine is a mini version of Russia ...

Now you've gone down Putin's rabbit hole.

[Hoonercat]

The Ukraine NATO veto is not true. Lots of words, no signed agreement. Same with membership of the EU which is effectively the same thing without a treaty.

I don't believe Zelensky either or at least I wouldn't take him at his word (niether would Putin). Although he was (?) an actor sponsored by a billionaire oligarch, he is no politician, Ukraine is a mini version of Russia.

Ok. "lunatic" is the wrong word. How about psychopath? Happy??

Lol. Both sides negotiated on March 15th, with Ukraine stating it was willing to compromise on NATO membership in return for security guarantees. The same day, Zelensky announced to the world that Ukraine had given up its ambition of joining NATO. In return, he wanted Russia to pull out of Ukraine. An agreement can only be signed if the other party accepts it. If NATO membership was the reason Putin invaded, why didn't he accept the proposals? After all, his aim would have been completed.
And no, membership of the EU is not effectively the same thing. Not even close.

[Mussels]

A signed agreement not to join NATO world have made a difference? Like the agreement Russia signed not to invade Ukraine in return for giving up nukes.

[slowsider]

A signed agreement not to join NATO world have made a difference? Like the agreement Russia signed not to invade Ukraine in return for giving up nukes.

Nobody sticks to signed agreements anymore. International reputation? Not as important as domestic consumption. It's not like Russia stands out for it.

[demographic]

Nobody sticks to signed agreements anymore. International reputation? Not as important as domestic consumption. It's not like Russia stands out for it.

Yeahbutt they'll be "breaking international law in a very specific and limited way." Which nowadays is quite fashionable.

[Mr Moofo]

Nobody sticks to signed agreements anymore. International reputation? Not as important as domestic consumption. It's not like Russia stands out for it.

Yeahbutt they'll be "breaking international law in a very specific and limited way." Which nowadays is quite fashionable.

Is “international law” actually a real thing

[demographic]

Nobody sticks to signed agreements anymore. International reputation? Not as important as domestic consumption. It's not like Russia stands out for it.

Yeahbutt they'll be "breaking international law in a very specific and limited way." Which nowadays is quite fashionable.

Is “international law” actually a real thing

Not if people keep ignoring it.