Putin recognizes rebel territories in Ukraine as indepent !

Post Reply New Topic

And you know what this history looked like here. Wonder who would stab us in the back this time :/

Me too. Relative democracy can be bottom-up improved. Stark authoritarianism can't.

Russia putting military and air bases on the Mexican border would be an act of aggression to the US. Russia permanently anchoring aircraft carriers in the English channel is an act of aggression to the UK and France. How is it any different with NATO putting bases on Ukraine's border when they know full well Russia doesn't want them to get that close?

I have been aware of his distain towards NATO and he wanted to see it dissolved for decades. It's no surprise he would want it to 1997 levels but it also wouldn't go amiss to keep out of Ukraine.

Just dismantle the NATO altogether, it's all a lie.

Trump was right about this one.

It seems more like WW1 with this whole apposing super power waffle with zero attempt to compromise to me.

Well, for some reason US did not invade Cuba... and there is no 45 million nation living in the English Channel.
The difference is recognition of sovereignty of a state.

Lavrov now openly says he does not recognize suvereignty of Ukraine. What kind of "compromise" do you imagine possible about it?

Trust me....everybody in the US military would prefer a "diplomatic solution." It is not in our best interest to be "aggressive"

It's not in the best interest, overall, for the US military to intervene fully in the region.

But we can't just "let this go."

It would certainly seem more like "appeasement" in the sense of Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement" if we just sit back and allow this to happen.

It's plainly obvious that Putin wants to install "satellite regimes" within the places which he "recognized."

"Independence," in this case, is very much a relative term.

It's totally understandable why the West doesn't war with Russia.

But what's really laughable is all these empty threats and warnings and flexing muscles coming from Western nations against Putin in the last weeks; and then....nothing.

At least be honest and say they're uninterested in fighting Russia for the sake of Ukraine, and that the Nato is just flags and a statements machine, nothing more; at least that would be credible.

If NATO says that, and is "honest," then there would be no reason for a NATO.

There are many nuances to many situations. It's hardly ever "either or."

Luckily in a sense, there was no "nuance" in World War II. The reasons for it were entirely clear.

There's NO reason for a NATO anymore.

There is something real about NATO: international forces are already here.
But non-members don't have such advantage.

Putin wants to expand his influence----like his Communist antecedents wants to expand their influence. Putin is just a continuation of the Pan-Russian idea.

Russia, to me, is merely a continuation of the USSR, though in truncated form, and perhaps without the Communism. It is not in the best interests of the world for Russia to become "less" truncated.

Do you think they will interfere if he invades Poland next?

I doubt it.

The Americans were liberal with the placement of their missiles too.

The 45 million don't matter too. They knew the cards they were dealt and thought that chumming up with NATO was a good idea. Everyone can see how it was going to escalate.

All that matters is that buffer zone. Nothing more, nothing less.

If we sit back and "just let things happen," Poland would probably be next on Putin's bucket list.

45 million people don't matter for you.
They could just choose being born in a different place, I guess.
And if it was I who was invaded, another 38 million would matter just as little to you.

Fine.
I believe that says enough on your part.

Looks like the bitter feelings after Yalta still have good justification today.