The Post; NATO was arming Ukraine for ' hybrid war ' against Russia last year

anonymoose said:
Hindsight is 20/20, Assigning blame does no good at this point and the dye is cast. This could have been avoided. We are in another Cold War for at least as long as Putin is in charge.
But yes negotiating with Putin would have been far better than what we have now.
Trump was right in hindsight.
NATO states it is strictly a defense alliance in it’s charter . No NATO country has ever invaded a former Warsaw Pact country and even the one country they did invade, Iraq, we at least withdrew and allowed them to govern themselves as they saw fit. Afghan was a different story, a knee jerk reaction to a gut punch.
Russia has quite a different history.
Jam up Putin? NATO has no choice but to do so now. More countries are now justified in considering NATO now.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on "now" but NATO expansion and treating Ukraine as a proxy war certainly was aggression

The best thing that could happen would be splitting up Ukraine -say at the Dnieper -and Keeping Kyiv as the capitol of the new state west of Dnieper with Odessa and some port cities in the west.

Having NATO on Russian border especially a land border is a recipe for future war
 
I seem to recall that the USA regarded having Soviet missiles sent to Cuba as a provocation of sorts.

But I guess that was Different.
 
moon said:
Europe and Russia were becoming commercially integrated- via Nord Stream etc. The US has acted to destroy that relationship. So- as much as Russia would like to isolate the EU from US influence it's the same the other way around.
Click to expand...
That is a solid point.
It's the same basis as the Abraham Accords. Use commerce as a means towards normalization.

The problem is everything became about jamming up Putin.
it doesn' t excuse his invasion - nobody can shell cities and just be overlooked

But i do blame our State Dept for a lot of this -Nuland is till there. Rice is still around
and they are known warmomngers/interventionists
 
anonymoose said:
Will be interesting to see what Finland does. As it is, they’re basically a de facto NATO member.
Click to expand...
he Russian-Finnish ‘Winter War’ that took place from 1939 to 1940 created a strong belief of military prowess for Finland and, unlike most countries in Europe, it did not significantly reduce its military following the cold war.

Perhaps because it shares a 1,340km border with Russia, ensuring it can protect itself has since been a high priority for Finland and with it the belief that it does not need Nato to remain secure.

This was reiterated in a speech given by Finnish foreign minister Pekka Haavisto the day Russia invaded Ukraine, who said: “We have a security policy designed to withstand times of crisis.

“We will use the means at our disposal, including cooperation with Nato partners. After a crisis, we will see what further action is needed.”

However, Finland’s President Sauli Niinisto has stressed: “Finland’s room to manoeuvre and freedom of choice also includes the possibility of military alignment and of applying for Nato membership, should we ourselves so decide.”

Others, including former prime minister Alexander Stubb, has said that Russia is “pushing Finland closer to Nato membership” and that “at this rate, we have no other option but to join.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/why-...ine-nordic-countries-consider-joining-1486283
 
dukkha said:
That is a solid point.
It's the same basis as the Abraham Accords. Use commerce as a means towards normalization.

The problem is everything became about jamming up Putin.
it doesn' t excuse his invasion - nobody can shell cities and just be overlooked

But i do blame our State Dept for a lot of this -Nuland is till there. Rice is still around
and they are known warmomngers/interventionists
Click to expand...

NATO encouraged and supplied the shelling of Donetsk and Lugansk- for eight years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top