For Christ's sake is it not all too obvious that Russia may feel threatened by the expansion of NATO right up to its borders and may simply be reacting to that. Would you want to be surrounded on all sides by a military organization which has alway been and was set up as, your enemy ? The future lies in cooperation on equal terms with Russia and they demand to be accepted on those equal terms and not referred to, as Obama referred to them, as a ''regional power''. The Russian withdrawal from Eastern Europe was made under promises of no consequent Eastward expansion of NATO and those promises have not been kept. Agreements signed by the Ukrainian government guaranteeing autonomy for the Russian populated east of their country have also not been kept. One agreement after another has not been kept, and now the Russians are reacting and saying ''enough is enough''. Is that too bloody difficult to understand ? And that is not cut and pasted from anywhere ! Is it also too difficult for your brain to understand that NATO exercises in Eastern Europe such as the ones planned for two years ago were seen as a provocation by Moscow - but apparently when the Russians do the same within their own borders they are the ones who are 'sabre rattling'. I am not on anyone's side here Stan, not Moscow, or any propaganda site, but am on the side of balance.
You are clearly not on the side of ordinary Ukrainians. Putin is demonstrating exactly why they would prefer to be under the protective umbrella of NATO. The threat that Putin fears is not NATO but the example of the Baltic states, Poland and increasingly Ukraine having demonstrably higher living standards and individual freedom than ordinary Russians, who he has robbed, degraded and mocked for 20 years. You continually conflate ‘Russians’ with ‘Putin’ and his cronies. They are not the same things. No promises were offered to the mafia state (and Gorbachev has said that he didn’t discuss anything other than what was going to happen to East Germany on unification) and nothing has been stated in treaties about NATO expansion. Why should Putin’s wishes be given more weight than Ukraine’s?
Why should Russia care if Ukraine joins NATO if they have no interest, according to you, in invading Ukraine or interfering with the governance of Ukraine?
Just to clear up any misunderstanding here Stan. The Ukrainians have a right to self determination - that is incontrovertible but maybe the same principle also applies to the ethnic Russian Eastern part of the country - why defend only the rights of one part of the population ? They were promised a large measure of autonomy by the Minsk agreement, which has subsequently been ignored by the government in Kiev. You may well say that the pro Russian separatists have been stirred up from Moscow, but do you have any proof of that ? Or that the ousting of the pro Russian president in the Ukraine was not done with a considerable amount of Western support and funding ? You speak about NATO very invitingly as a 'protective shield' - was it's function only protective in Afghanistan, Iraq or in Libya ? It has elsewhere been described as a 'Hegemonic American Protectorate' and that not by pro Moscow sources. It's existence is there to support American interests wherever they are in the World. Doubtless the Ukraine has the sovereign right to form military partnerships as they choose - however full NATO membership would throw up the probability of American strategic missiles being placed there within easy striking distance of Moscow - the history of NATO's attitude to Russia does not fill them with much confidence here ! This fear is driving Russian policy. This placement of weapons would not be done with the accord of the population of the Ukraine, any more than the placement of American nuclear weapons in Germany is done with the support of the Germans - in fact not many German people are actually aware of their existence. So how do we appease both sides ? NATO needs to get over its long history of viewing Russia as the enemy and learn to work with them as equals - better still would be to disband NATO altogether and replace it with something more neutral. If the Ukraine really could come under something which was only a protective shield rather than become a storehouse for missiles aimed at Moscow then the basis may be there for an agreement, but that isn't the case at the moment.
Because if the Ukraine joins NATO it opens up the scenario that American/NATO strategic missiles can legally be planted on Russia's doorstep.
It is a very interesting debate to be honest and i can see Colognes point quite clearly. I am open minded. Lets say Russia, china etc formed a nato style group and wanted to put a base very close to the uk. What would we think about that. Now im not saying theres any rights or wrongs as i dont know enough about it. I just hope and pray nothing kicks off as its pretty much game over for us all if it does.
There are Russian nuclear missile armed submarines in the Channel at the moment Bob. Plus, they have 286 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering 958 nuclear warheads anywhere in the world. This ‘missiles next door’ stuff is a complete red herring. We can blow up the world at a distance, no problem. It’s much more threatening to put soldiers, artillery and tanks next door. Like the Russians have done. As I’ve mentioned on here before, this bollocks is propelled by pathetic testosterone driven posturing. By boys with toys that are much too powerful to be played with - Putin, Biden, Johnson, Macron the lot of them.
This is clearly nonsense. The US can launch strategic missiles to take out targets anywhere in Russia already, in multiple different ways. So let's try again: Why should Russia care if Ukraine joins NATO if they have no interest, according to you, in invading Ukraine or interfering with the governance of Ukraine?
Distance still matters - what having missiles parked next door means is that if fired the warning time for any defence system has been drastically reduced - to as little as 5 minutes from their initial launch.
So Russia is justified in 'defensively' invading Ukraine if it joins NATO because of the hypothetical situation of the US then placing missiles there that would arrive in Russia a minutes faster than the missiles in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, and presumably no faster at all than the missiles launched from the 50+ anonymous attack subs the US has prowling around the oceans and seas. Right. Thankfully I have better things to do with my day that discussing anything further with an apologist for Putin.
Would you be comfortable with Russian military forces, equipment and missiles stationed in Scotland or France?
If the French or the Scots invited them in as part of a treaty organisation I’d live with it. If they had invaded France or Scotland I’d be less than happy.
I am no apologist for Putin - just trying to keep a balanced perspective here. The main issue here is our differing attitudes towards nato not towards Russia or Putin. The talk now is of the possibility of Russia reacting by stationing missile bases in Cuba or Venezuela in which case we would have come full circle back to the cold war - we'll see if that happens and how the USA reacts to such a thing. The main issue is Russian and American perspectives and suspicions of each others motives it really has little to do with the Ukraine. De escalation of this crisis can only happen if both sides are prepared to make compromise. I agree that it's not good to have your army stationed so close to another countries border in battle mode but if the Russians hadn't done this then how else could they raise the issue of Nato expansion - and through this act they have the Western leaders offering a Summit meeting between Biden and Putin which probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. The actual threat of invasion is minimal, very largely due to the fact that the Ukraine has the third largest army in Europe (after Russia and France) even without Western help. Russia cannot afford to get involved in such a thing the army at the border is just a bargaining tool.
Bob don’t going swimming in the sea off the British coast mate as you might swim into a Russian sub. They continually violate our air space and play cat and mouse with our ships as well. Putin is always breaking or violating rules. Look at Crimea?
Yes. If the Russians wanted to blow up London they already have the capability to do so. The ability to blow up London four times over doesn't bother me one bit more than the ability to blow up London one times over. They better bloody target Stamford Bridge as the epicenter.
I was thinking more of the multiple other options than the nuclear one which they wouldn't need to be in France or Scotland to utilise.
