Oh, I know you were. I have stopped being polite. 
Again: that was informal verbal assurances. Again: it was with the USSR at a much less adversarial time. Not with Russia, not with Putin.
You seem to want to ignore the fact that the Warsaw Pact countries ran screaming into NATO’s arms because they don’t want to end up violently invaded and occupied by Russia again. Nobody forced them to join NATO. Nobody’s forcing them to stay in NATO. Why don’t you think they should have a choice in the matter?
Why do you think Russia should have a perpetual veto power over the security situation of countries on its border, countries that emphatically rejected Russia?
I mean there is the realpolitik sense that it’s best not to anger a nuclear superpower, but is there anything more to your thinking than “might makes right”?
Since 1992 or so the U.S. has invaded, “regime changed” and bombed a lot of countries mostly without any “right” to do it (say, for example an U.N. resolution), we are a bit past the point of discussing if might, indeed, makes right.
We had a series of international relations norms, no invasion withouth U.N. mandate, things like that, these norms were mostly honored in the breach but were at least given lip service.
IMHO Bush’s invasion of Irak in 2003 (and in the Russian’s eyes NATO’s bombing and intervention in Yugoslavia in the 90’s) was the beginning of the death knell of that international order.
By now it’s just Realpolitik, as always was, only more so.
Putin just ordered a peacekeeping mission in the Donbas.
The point is that it won’t be an invasion. Some useful Quislings in these republics will ask the Russians to come “help” them restore “order,” so it won’t be an invasion at all! It’ll be just helping out an ally!
The Ukrainian ambassador to the UK was just on BBC’s Newsnight moments after being in meetings with Zelensky, Biden and Johnson and said:
a) Russian tanks are crossing the border now (not sure I believe him but it is imminent)
b) Ukraine is most worried about air and sea - it believes it is prepared for ground warfare
c) Zelensky will go on TV tonight (at what time I don’t know as it is very late there) to address the Ukrainian people and will invite residents of the breakaway regions to move west into the other parts of Ukraine and they will be looked after.
It has also been noted that Russian tanks moving towards the border have a “z” hastliy painted on them
Nobody quite knows that they are for but it could be these tanks have a specific role, but it could also be that because Ukraine has similar types of tanks this is a way to avoid friendly fire when in the same area as enemy vehicles.
No. We should have helped them transition to a modern peer instead of strategically encircling them and trying to profit off their problems. We could have had an ally instead we have a suspicious rival who is going to strengthen an alliance with an old rival, China, to work against a mutual nemesis.
And they’re moving in, calling it “peacekeeping.”
OK, so I am claiming the invasion started on Monday 21 February US time.
What a remarkable amount of bullshit but you’re not known for being clever. Absolutely no one threatened Russian to invade Ukraine or else. This is a Russian mob boss trying to stay in power. A semi-democractic Slavic state thriving would make him look bad.
NATO had Russian engagement from they get go. Hell there were hopes of Russia joining NATO
Western powers have let Russian oligarchy traipse through the corridors of power or years
Western powers have let Russian agents kill people in western nations with little push back
The US had had so many rests with Russian that basically the power button is looking worn out
The failure of democracy in Russia is a Putin problem driven by a US ideologically happy to overlook robber baron capitalism.
I agree. The invasion has begun. Those areas may have styled themselves as “breakaway” regions for several years but they are still part of Ukraine. The title of this thread is outdated.
Based on Putin’s speech I fully expect he will move on Kyiv soon with the intent of annexing the entire country to Russia. A full invasion is just a matter of time. There is language in that speech that makes me think Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have reason to be concerned as well.
All three of those are NATO members.
Moderating:
Dial back the personal insults. You made your points well and they would have been just as notable without the jab.
Not a Warning.
This is alarming:
@Smapti, I’m fully aware they are NATO members, thanks. I don’t believe Putin gives a shit. He’s a thug and from that speech seems pretty damn paranoid. That’s pretty much the point.
Today Belarus announced Russian troops will be staying put in their country until NATO troops are withdrawn from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. (Coincidence? I think not.) Lukashenko is little more than Putin’s puppet at this point. I won’t be surprised if Belarus “requests” to be annexed to Russia in the near future.
After the Putin speech Prime Minister Šimonytė of Lithuania said
No red lines too red to cross. Pretty much sums it up for me.
Putin doesn’t give a shit about declaring war on the US? Because that’s what an invasion of a NATO member would entail.
Putin may be a thug, but he’s not suicidal.
You and I differ in that you believe attacking a NATO member is the same as declaring war on the United States. The principle of mutual self defense hasn’t been tested ever to my knowledge; if it has it has been decades. I don’t see many NATO members willing to go to war to protect the sovereignty of the Baltic states and I doubt the US would be likely to do much when the UK is the only ally supporting military action. Putin’s objective is to destroy NATO.
All three of the Baltics have substantial Russian populations in the east. Putin could easily stir up enough trouble to justify “liberating” ethnic Russians from “genocide”. He’s already playing that game in Ukraine.
That strongly depends on what party is in power in the US.
There are over 1000 US and other NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states with the stated mission to help defend them if they are attacked. An attack on them is effectively an attack on US armed forces.
Article V was activated on September 12, 2001.
If the NATO members don’t go to war to protect the sovereignty of member states in the Baltic, then NATO is destroyed. “An attack against one is an attack against all” is the defining point of the entire alliance.