They didn't directly seek NATO membership in 2014, at least not to any higher degree than they had been between 2004 and 2010, when you already had a pro-Western government resulting from a color revolution in power in Kyiv. Russia nonetheless immediately moved in on Crimea and quickly sent troops which took over Donetsk+Luhansk, whereas they had previously sat back in a very similar situation in 2004 after the orange revolution, or 2008 when there were acute talks about Ukrainian NATO membership at the Bukarest summit. How do you guys explain this if the prospect of Ukrainian NATO membership is allegedly the sole casus belli?






You've been saying that the war is lost for Ukraine for at least 2 years, yet Russia still hasn't made all thaaaat much progress. Essentially, you're still banking on the moment when Ukraine's front lines collapse properly under the lack of personnel. A moment which - according to you - has been imminent for at least 18 months, yet still hasn't materialized.




I don't disagree that this war has exposed a lot of NATO's shortcomings - but how should we call Russia then? The second- or third-strongest military in the world waging intense war against its much smaller neighbor - whose allies have proven to be paper tigers?! - for three years straight, and all they got to show for it are gains of around 5% of Ukraine's territory (compared with what Russia already held in Feb 2022, before the invasion).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 22 2025 04:56pm

Carrot and stick principle, that's what I've expected. Putin should accept.

Maybe because because it was completely clear to the Russians that NATO and EU had a keen interest in Ukraine and secondly that the Russians had spotted a trend? I mean how could you not spot a trend here? Can you now answer that question for once and for all please?








The situation for Ukraine is now way worse than 18 months ago. In contrast to what you claim Russia has made a lot of progress because this is a war of attrition and they're grinding the Ukrainians down. Not only have the Ukrainians suffered a lot of casualties in those 18 months, they're exhausted and many refuse to fight / go AWOL. Secondly Ukraine is now losing fortified positions and even fortress towns at an increased rate you're not gonna tell anyone here that you haven't noticed this. Or are the people in Germany completely unaware / deprived of this kind of bad news?


Last but not least, Donald Trump. You understand the implications

This post was edited by Djunior on Jan 23 2025 01:25am

I think that NATO would not have been a problem for Russians if it was a defensive alliance and cooperated with mutual benefit to promote peace and security of the European Continent. Instead, based on the past 3 decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union it seems to be an aggressive expansionsionary block carving up countries, creating new statelets and destroying livelihoods of millions of innocents for no fault of their own. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point and a collision course has been set unless cooler heads prevail.

I think you have unfairly forgotten the fate of late Saddam Hussein who has been a crucial middle eastern ally in 1970-1990 including fighting communism as well as a disastrous proxy war against Iran. Military industrial complex made a shitload of money supplying WMDs, chemical weapons and materiel for that proxy war.



His reign ended when USSR collapsed as his services against communists were no longer needed. His mistake was also destroying WMDs and chemical weapons after he used them against Kurds as he was unable to hand said weaponry over later on while US knew how much and what they sold to him. Scott Ritter famously was the guy that raised alarms that Iraq has no more WMDs and chemical weapons, but alas.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/
He furthermore misinterpreted US Ambassadors April Glaspie’s comment about Kuwait and invaded it to stop the theft of Iraqi oil (confirmed by UN at the time) only to be publicly made an enemy number one even though he immediately offered full and immediate surrender to the Americans. It’s exemplary that his genocidal excesses were overlooked when he was an ally, but were thrust forward into the spotlight once he became of no use. The rest as they say is history.



This post was edited by Malopox on Jan 23 2025 01:55am

The breakup of the USSR was a great opportunity to improve relations from that point onward but it didn't happen and it's clear why. NATO has a desire to keep expanding East and won't stop even if they risk war.

ZeleJugend

The new NATO members on the Balkans are kinda irrelevant to Russia's strategic outlook, so the big "offense" are the two waves of eastern expansion in 99 and 04. In both cases, these countries voluntarily joined, in some cases almost begging to get under NATO's protective umbrella. But I'm sure the century of abuse and exploitation they had suffered at the hands of the Russians had nothing to do with that.



Also, you didn't actually answer my question. By 2008, NATO's eastward expansion was baked in and talks about Ukraine in NATO - at least in the long run - became more acute. Under your premise that the prospect of Ukrainian NATO membership is a red line for Russia and sufficient reason to trigger war, why didn't they already pull this trigger in 2008 or 2009? Particularly considering how economically weakened and war-weary the US were at that moment in time.

And keep in mind that the 2010 presidential election was very tight, with Yanukovych getting 49%, Timoshenko 46% and the rest going to an ultra-nationalist from Lviv who surely had no love lost for Russia. In 08/09, there was no guarantee whatsoever that Russia soon would get a friendly government in Kyiv again. Why didn't they already pull the trigger against the pro-Western government in Kyiv which resulted from a color revolution and which was musing NATO membership?




Of course Ukraine got whittled down over the past 18 months - but so did Russia. They have an overheating economy which is holding up for now, but clearly can't keep up the current pace forever without blowing up. They lost control over parts of their own territory. More a symbolic loss, but the fact that Ukraine still holds it half a year later indicates that the Russian military doesn't have huge reserves waiting in the wings. And they have personnel shortages as well, otherwise, they wouldn't try to recruit new soldiers in freakin' North Korea and Yemen...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 23 2025 06:54am

The trend is completely clear. Anyone can see it --> NATO expansion East. Disappointing you dodge but it's clear you don't want to acknowledge this fact for 3 years now

If your opinion is that they voluntarily joined therefor it's ok in geo-politics, well you're just wrong, the countries involved decide for themselves if they defend their interests or if they don't. This ties in with the next point -->




Putin ordered a drastic increase in defense spending and in 2008 a complete reform of the armed forces, was that just a coincidence in your opinion or a reaction to continued NATO expansion? As pointed out to you many times already, the Russians had complained about NATO expansion many times, were increasing defense spending again and again, how can you suggest it was all fine and dandy until Ukraine?? Can you just be honest about it the facts are right there for you to look at. Here's a source make sure to check it --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russian_military_reform




Man Ukraine has recruited volunteers from all over the world. Ukraine's manpower situation is critical and so are their demographics (reason why they don't want to mobilize the youngest generation). Russia hasn't fully mobilized and relies on volunteers and yes they recruit from other countries just like Ukraine but the Russians have more men, more guns, ammo and resources. How you can deny this I've got no idea.

Surely Ukraine won't be dumb enough to trust Russia again