if they agreed in 2008 for ukraine to join nato then during the process of entering nato (it does not happen overnight ok) russia would have invaded ukraine. should i assume you disagree with this logic? putin was very clear on this at the time though. "but ferdia we cant trust anything he says" my counter argument to that is: well actually we CAN trust when he says. if he says finland can join nato, no problem, then we will invite finland to nato. thats what happened there. if he says, yes the west can send tanks, then thats what we will (and did) do. if he says, dont give ukraine long range weapons (say, range 230km) that could be used to attack russia, then the west will say, ok we wont do that (but we will push the envelope).

ukraine moved to join nato and when it was clear it was full steam ahead the die was cast. this to my mind is a case of cauase and effect, if you dont agree with this logic then ask yourself why putin did not invade ukraine when he came to power, why only now, what was the trigger event. this is logic. nato IS a military alliance and it does not matter if you call it a defensive alliance or a tea party, it matters what russia thinks and they see/saw ukraine in nato as a threat, ergo, todays position. i really dont want to use someone else's arguement here but it is what it is (i assume you watched the relevant talks / debates on this).

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 7 2023 03:30am

By that metric Putin runs NATO?
By refusing Ukraine entry Merkle basically gave Putin the green light to invade.
The opposite approach would have been to provide a detterent.
Making it clear that invading Ukraine while it was in the process of joining would have been considered a red line.

I see the argument your making. However it equates to total appeasement. And look where thay has gotten us?
If I can see any net positive for Ukraine it's that it bought them time.
But it isn't as if Merkle then went and diversified Germany's energy sector. They even shutdown nuclear power plants and compounded the problem!

At the very least EU countries could have made it too costly for Russia to invade Ukraine/behave aggressively.
They were passive and over exposed to Russia energy. And in my opinion the critisicm is deserved for both.

They barely move the lines and just sit back while barraging Ukrainian defensive positions with artillery endlessly. Ukraine instead of retreating from places like bakhmut instead keep sending troops. It’s impossible to know losses for both sides but it’s not hard to deduce that the side that’s getting shelled at a much higher rate would be taking higher losses.

The alternative, of mobilizing large amounts and trying to create arrows or deep blitzkrieg type pushes are more effective at taking territory but come at much higher costs both men and equipment wise.

Imo the Russians objective in this war is not only to take territory but to break the Ukrainian army so as to severely limit counters. That’s why to a certain extent they’re fine with taking an inch here and there while inflicting casualties. At least that’s what I think is happening.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 7 2023 06:50am

According to MacGregor the Russians fire up to 60K shells a day while the Ukrainians only fire 6K.

Soledar and Bakmuth have swallowed up large numbers of Ukrainian soldiers, some Ukrainian brigades losing 70% of their strength before being pulled out / cycled.

No source, no soup.

responded to all.

TLDR: Germany have gotten the bad end of the stick in this conflict and its really not deserved. They appear to have been one of the few countries that understood the situation, tried to make the best of it (working with Russia) and then getting shat on when events overtook them.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 7 2023 07:52am

Agreed

Germany is the most populous country, largest economy and de-facto leader of the European block; The German government was asleep at the wheel for 2 decades.
With great power comes great responsibility.

The blame for the invasion lies at Putin's doorstep, and thus at the Russian peoples; Also at the door of those who appeased Putin's previous aggression. Front and centre of that is Merkle, Obama and Hollande/Macron.
This narrative of NATO expansion being the root cause of the war is completely debunked; Putin's ambitions for Ukraine were decided well before Ukraine's intention to join NATO.

The constant refusal to accept other factors for Russia invading is inept. Rationalizing the invasion through this narrative of NATO's provocation, in my opinion is totally naive.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 7 2023 08:23am

and thats what makes the world so great, different opinions.

"Germany is responsible for Russian invasion because it didn't accept that Ukraine to join NATO in 2008 ... "
=> That is the metaphysical description of "deceit"

Trends:
The Russians know the tanks and airplanes are coming so they need to do what they plan on doing faster but it's possible it wont succeed .

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Feb 7 2023 09:00am