"This war has nothing to do with Russia's actions"

Oh my bad!!

No wait. I just checked my history books and the war started when Putin's Russia invaded the Donbass and tried to capture Kiev (and wasn't that a raging success?).

Its very true that, once the war started and the western leadership was alerted to the avarice nature of the Russia regime, they then responded by seeking to lay Russia low. But had the Putin not sent troops across the Ukrainian eastern and northern borders, there would be no war.

I know that you've invented all sorts of (invalid) rationalisations to try to excuse the Russia aggression but the fact remains that there'd be no death on the steppes today is Putin didn't seek to expand his territory and absorb more people into his fading regime.

And in the end it was all for nothing. He's tanked his economy, decimated the cream of his youth, caused other nations, who realised they were next, to huddle closer to NATO, and forced his nation to subsume their independence to China. All for nothing.

You really are a clueless idiot.
Seriously, like dumb as a box of rocks dumb.
It was the West who was expanding THEIR empire with NATO.

Diplomatic Cable:

NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES
http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Date: 2008 February 1, 14:25 (Friday)
Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to
Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)
at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR
and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry,
Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations
generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability
and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End
summary.

- With thanks to Julian Assange.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that."

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders."

Hi AC,

I think that the reason countries join NATO is not to invade Russia, but for fear of being invaded by Russia. Many NATO member countries have had autocracy imposed on them by Russia and have no desire to become vassal states again. I doubt that Russia can maintain the war for much longer as this would explain why they are throwing everything at the Ukrainians: the meatwave tactic supersized, probably trying to exhaust ammunition.

Now let me get this straight AC! You think that if Russia makes a demand that NATO essentially dismantle their defensive structures and NATO decides to not do it, that means the war is caused by NATO. Wow!

You keep on raving about international law but clearly you have little understanding of it. Making demands on enemies to effectively disarm doesn't justify going to war against them when they refuse.

How you going there Fester,
"I think that the reason countries join NATO is not to invade Russia, but for fear of being invaded by Russia."
That would seem logical, however I think there's more to it.

I'm fairly certain that European countries know damn well that Putin's Russia has no interest in invading anyone.
They tried everything to avoid having to go to war in Ukraine, the red lines had already been clearly stated, but the US obviously wanted a conflict, that's why they forced Zelensky to can the negotiation agreements with the promise that they would back him 'As long as it takes'.
I think the Wests first aim was creating a situation that would lead to Putins ousting, but equally important is an obsession with taking Crimea as a NATO base for the west.

Americas a bastard.
In the same way that pharmaceutical companies don't want healthy people, the MIC doesn't want peace.
The US likes to get everyone thinking their neighbours are their enemies.

They'd arm New Zealand if the could.
Then they'd tell us NZ is a threat, and after Australia arms up big, they'd go the Indonesians and tell them Australia was a threat.

The US has a Department of Defense (For war)
- But there isn't and Department of Peace.

And look how America carries on, more weapons sales is good for jobs and the economy.

Best money ever spent Lindsay Graham brags, jobs and profits for America, while Ukrainians do the dying to hurt our enemy Russia.

You know my position, I don't like sanctions or overthrows.
One is collective punishment to remove a disliked foreign leader.
i.e conquest by a foreign power.
The other is also conquest and meddling in another nations internal affairs.
- Where's the respect for soverignty?

Hi mhaze,
"Now let me get this straight AC! You think that if Russia makes a demand that NATO essentially dismantle their defensive structures and NATO decides to not do it, that means the war is caused by NATO. Wow!"

- Not necessarily, but I think it might be a realistic starting point for serious negotiations.
- Ask for more than what you want,
and negotiate back to 'NO NATO expansion' in Ukraine.
(That's if what Stoltenberg said is accurate)

It's not as if the West didn't break their word expanding eastwards.
They did give those assurances, despite their being no formal treaty.

If this is a 'rules based order' then shouldn't those rules be the same for everyone?

If the US has the Monroe Doctrine which holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States, then why can't Russia play by the same rules regarding NATO nukes on their border?

As for Ukraine, the US and NATO set the precedent for recognising breakaway states and accepting their 'right to collective defense' with Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

And if you want to get serious, you need to look at the nuclear treaties.
You can't put US nukes on Russias border with a 1 minute flight from launch to Moscow, if Russian nukes take 3 minutes to hit America.
It's reckless, Russia's forced to make faster decisions and it creates room for miscalculations.
After the USSR fell, NATO expanded eastwards and placed interceptors which could not only be used for defense but also for offense.
When players don't play by the rules then the treaties break down.
- Those treaties are the only stops standing in between peace and nuclear war.
The US refused to discuss or negotiate Russia's security concerns.
Deliberate failure of diplomacy, because they wanted conflict instead.
True for both current conflicts actually.

- Unless you actually prefer conflict instead?
and one side underestimates their adversary, and things don't turn out the way one plans,
with thousands of innocent people caught in the middle killed.