X Close

Why Putin will use nuclear weapons All the signs suggest Russia has made up its mind

He is ready to use nuclear weapons whenever he wants to. Credit: Contributor/Getty Images

He is ready to use nuclear weapons whenever he wants to. Credit: Contributor/Getty Images


June 2, 2023   6 mins

However you try to spin it, the drone strikes that struck Moscow’s wealthiest neighbourhoods on Tuesday night represented a grim turning point in Putin’s flagging campaign against Ukraine. The surprise attacks — which killed eight people, and for which Kyiv has denied all responsibility — were the first against Russian civilians since the war began. They were also the most significant incursion into Russian territory since the Second World War.

Putin was quick to brand the strikes a “terrorist” act, while a rattled Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner mercenaries, gave war chiefs a dressing-down for their inability to prevent three of eight drones from evading Russian air defences. Yet while this all provided a morale boost for the Ukrainian war effort, the question of retaliation hangs in the air.

Fifteen months into the war, Putin’s bombs have not broken Ukraine. An influx of 300,000 new soldiers over the winter has done little to improve the fighting of Russian units, and the reported deployment of tanks from the Fifties has added fuel to the rumour that Russian munitions are running out. Indeed, Russian military commanders appear to have exhausted their ability to effectively respond to Ukrainian escalation. It is becoming clear, in my view, that the only way Russia can meet escalation with escalation is by introducing nuclear weapons.

Many Western experts say they take the threat of a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine seriously, but make the mistake of asserting that the odds are low. Last month, for instance, Avril Haines, the US Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate hearing that Putin’s weakened conventional force would make the Russian President more reliant on “asymmetric options” for deterrence, including nuclear capabilities — but he also said it was “very unlikely” that Moscow would do so. Speaking at the same hearing, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, also assessed the chances as “unlikely”.

And yet, there is strong evidence that Putin has resolved to use a tactical nuclear weapon in his war in Ukraine. In recent speeches and interviews, he has argued that Russia faces an existential threat — a situation, under Russian policy, that warrants the use of nuclear weapons. He has also reshuffled his military leadership, so that the three generals responsible for the employment of tactical nuclear weapons now command his “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Moreover, while Nato has made it clear that it will not sanction the use of its members’ nuclear weapons to defend Ukraine, Putin already has tactical reasons to deploy them: to save Russian soldiers’ lives, to shorten the war, to destroy Ukrainian forces. He also has strategic reasons: to rejuvenate the deterrent value of his nuclear arsenal and to prove that he is not a bluffer. We must therefore assume he is ready to use them, most likely in response to his faltering military’s inability to sufficiently escalate by conventional means. In other words, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.

For much of the last 80 years, Russia’s security has rested on two pillars whose relative strength has waxed and waned — its conventional ground forces and its nuclear weapons. The conventional forces have been used to influence, bully and force Russia’s neighbours and adversaries to bend to its will. The nuclear forces were intended to deter the United States and the West from interfering militarily in Russia and its perceived zone of influence. Since the end of the Cold War, however, Russia’s conventional forces have at times struggled with their share of the task. To compensate, Russian leaders have had to rely on their nuclear forces to do both: strategic nuclear weapons to deter the West and tactical nuclear weapons to threaten neighbours.

Today, a single nuclear strike in Ukraine could thwart a Ukrainian counterattack with little loss of Russian lives. For Moscow, this consideration is as much practical as it is moral: last year’s large-scale mobilisation and increase in military units showed that Putin’s army was too small for its task. Nevertheless, Russia has managed to create only a few new battalions because most new personnel and equipment simply replaced losses in existing units. Putin and his military leaders are running out of the people and material needed to achieve his goals.

At the start of this year, Putin took several public steps to demonstrate that he is not bluffing about using nuclear weapons. In February, he signed a law “suspending” Russia’s participation in New Start, the strategic nuclear arms treaty. This step officially ended joint inspections of American and Russian nuclear weapons sites and released Russia from the obligation to limit its number of strategic nuclear weapons — though Russia promised to do so.

Then, in March, Putin announced that he would station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, with a storage facility set to be built as early as July. Since Russia has already deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missile systems there — as well as thousands of troops — this would put nuclear delivery systems and warheads in close proximity to one another, greatly reducing the warning time of their use. Putin also suggested that Belarussian forces would be trained to use the weapons.

The Kremlin has taken these increasingly threatening steps in the belief that Nato and the West — in particular, the United States — is not paying attention to Russian demands on the global stage. In 2018, when Putin unveiled a bevy of new nuclear weapons, he warned: “You will listen to us now!” Except many didn’t: four years later, his invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call for those who had ignored him.

Despite this, some in Russia undoubtedly fear that the threat of a nuclear strike has begun to ring hollow. And for Putin, whose regime is vulnerable, to threaten a tactical nuclear attack without following through now carries perhaps as much risk as striking. As a result, besides warning the West that he might use a nuclear weapon, the Kremlin has, step by step, prepared the Russian people with reasons why he should use nuclear weapons. Among these justifications, Putin has repeatedly invoked “whataboutist” comparisons to the United States. When announcing plans for deployment of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus, he said: “The United States has been doing this for decades. They have long… deployed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries, Nato countries, in Europe, in six states… We are going to do the same thing.” Putin has also repeatedly referenced American nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and equated American goals then — to save soldiers’ lives and shorten the war — with Russian goals today.

He has, for instance, made clear to the Russian people that Moscow’s red lines for the use of nuclear weapons, spelled out in its official documents, have all been crossed since the invasion. These include the claim that the very survival of Russia is at stake in the current struggle — and at last month’s Victory Day parade, Putin declared that the West’s “goal is to achieve the collapse and destruction of our country”. Another of Russia’s officially designated red lines is attacks “against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces’ response actions”. Perhaps in light of this, Moscow has alleged that Ukrainian drones have struck strategic nuclear bomber planes inside Russia, and that Ukraine and the US are responsible for drones launched to assassinate Putin. All these claims, the real and the fabricated, are used to establish the pretext for Putin to use nuclear weapons.

In response, a number of Western observers have pointed out that, since we have not seen any movement of nuclear weapons, we have no tangible signs of intent to use them. I disagree. Last autumn, officials in Kyiv reported that Russia was firing “Kh-55 nuclear cruise missiles” with dummy warheads. Observers suggested these missiles — which are designed to carry only a nuclear weapon — were launched to erode Ukrainian air defences by “decoying” them into destroying the Kh-55s rather than missiles with conventional explosives. This claim makes little sense: missiles, even unarmed, would be too valuable for Russia to use as decoys. What does make sense, however, is launching Cold War-era missiles with dummy warheads to test their reliability for use in a real nuclear strike.

But what will trigger Putin’s decision to launch? Most likely it will be the inability of the Russian military to meet his demands by conventional means. If a Ukrainian offensive threatens, for example, the loss of Crimea, Putin would seek an escalation of the fighting to prevent that loss. If the conventional forces could not successfully respond, a nuclear strike against the Ukrainian forces would be deployed. As he announced last September, on the night he illegally added four Ukrainian provinces to Russia: “If the territorial unity of our country is threatened, in order to protect Russia and our nation, we will unquestionably use all the weapons we have. This is no bluff.”

At home, too, there are push factors that may further embolden Putin. Most urgently, he is under pressure from Russian nationalists, who supported him in his rise to power, but are now vocal in their dissatisfaction. Some, like former FSB officer Igor Girkin, have openly criticised the senior military leadership, even Putin. That criticism may be morphing into opposition, forcing him to consider escalating his war before his conventional forces are ready.

Meanwhile, claims that Putin would be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by important allies, such as China or India, are not borne out by the war thus far. Although Putin values the support of others, he has not shied away from putting that support at risk to get what he wants.

None of this is to say that we in the West should pressure Ukraine to forgo its goal to liberate all seized territory. But it does mean that we should anticipate a nuclear attack and develop possible responses. As soon as Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the fallout will start to spread. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians will be dead, suffering or dealing with the effects of the explosion. Hundreds of millions of Europeans will be bracing for war. But 7 billion others around the globe will go about their business, alarmed but physically unaffected.

Ultimately, this may prove more dangerous to the international order. The image that many people have of nuclear arms as civilisation-ending weapons will be erased. In its place, such weapons will have been “normalised” and, although tragic, acceptable in war. In this dramatically changed world, the burden is on the West to decide how to respond.

 

A version of this article first appeared on RussiaMatters.


Retired Brigadier General Kevin Ryan served as US defense attaché to Moscow and deputy director for strategy, plans and policy on the Army Staff.  He commanded air defense units from platoon to brigade.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

365 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

The author says Putin is laying the groundwork for his nation to accept his use of nuclear weapons. I feel something similar is happening to us in the West with respect to our own use of nuclear weapons.
In yesterday’s edition of Unherd, a Ukrainian politician was interviewed by Freddie Sayers. In summary, she said that only victory in this war was acceptable to Ukraine; that Ukraine intended to take back all its territory, including Crimea; and Ukraine was conducting cross-border raids into Russia as tactical moves when needed (she was a bit cagey about the use of US equipment in those raids). When this war started Biden supposedly set clear limits on what Ukrainian actions America would support. One by one those limits have been set aside and attacks on the Russian homeland are now acceptable.
In the current article, a retired US general makes a convincing case, imo, that Putin is ready to use nukes, and even describes a likely scenario for use of nukes. Slowly but surely the use of nukes by Russia is normalized as a real possibility, and the only question (actually, the really big question) is what will the West (meaning the US) do if Putin uses nukes. The unstated answer is they’ll also use nukes, or perhaps unleash a cyberattack that will prompt a stronger response from Putin.
In my opinion, we are being walked one small step at a time to a nuclear conflict. I know this opinion won’t be popular on Unherd, but I blame Biden almost as much as I blame Putin. It’s time he grew up as a statesman and worked toward a negotiated end to the war. Negotiation and compromise are not dirty words.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

The problem with that is what happens next? If the US forces the Ukrainians to effectively surrender and lose large swathes of its nation, what’s to stop Putin simply trying again in 5 years once he’s rearmed? He can just threaten to drop a nuke and keep biting off pieces of other nation’s territory whenever the mood takes him.
Ukraine once the conflict has finished already has a massive job repairing the damage caused by Putins reenactment of the blitz. It’s going to be a fine balancing act between rebuilding and keeping its armed forces sufficiently strong to try and guard its borders, the last thing it needs is Putin feeling emboldened to try again in the near future

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So what’s the solution then? Keep escalating until Putin surrenders?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I hope and believe there’s something between that extreme and “keep conceding until Putin sates himself and relents”.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

How about Russia withdraws it’s troops from Ukraine, internationally observed referendums in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and whatever is left of Ukraine can join NATO, with NATO agreeing not to station battalions or weapons in countries bordering Russia?

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

NATO does not have battalions or weapons to station or not station in a country – bordering Russia or not. Nato alliance members have their own armed forces and weapons. Russia cannot be allowed to dictate which sovereign countries join the NATO alliance, or what sort of military other countries are allowed to have.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe Blow

Yes, they can.
There has to be a balance of power.
Threaten Russia and this is what happens.
Actions have consequences.

S Smith
S Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Agreed. Also, our Undead President in the U.S. and his handlers have escalated this at every turn. The U.S., before the year ends most likely, will have multitudes of troops dying en masse in Ukraine. Even if it doesn’t happen this year, it will happen next.
Jesus, it’s so sickening. But true. We are in a forever war with Russian now. At the same time, we are at our own end of empire. The U.S. is a dystopia as it is where one half of the country hates another and tent cities ring the sidewalks of even our most beautiful cities.
None of this will end well, and I send a tremendous amount of blame for this on the warmongering of Biden, his sycophants and patsies, useful idiots like Blinken, and the whole rotten edifice of the left, which used to have at least a few statesmen who were prescient when it came to these situations.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

This conflict has it’s origins back in the Obama era, it’s been going on for a while.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

Russia is always at war with its neighbors. No Russia, no wars. What will happen when China takes parts of Siberia?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

The only thing the west has done is provide weapons, which I don’t believe can be classed as escalation. Missiles targeting civilian cities and mobilising 300k men however I would class as escalation. It amazes me how Russia seems to escape all blame despite it being the aggressor who has ramped up the conflict at every opportunity

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Sadly, many Conservatives hate Biden and have a skewed understanding of this conflict. Because Biden says he wants to help Ukraine, we must therefore oppose it. But that is incorrect.

Biden allowed Putin to invade Ukraine by not stating uncategorically that we will help defend Ukraine, 100%. Obama should have done the same with Crimea.

But that did not happen, so here we are. Angry that our leaders let us into this expensive heartbreaking mess, but still knowing that Putin is 100% the aggressor here. No matter how wrong Biden and Obama were in responding to Putin, the fact remains:

This is Putin’s war and Putin’s evil. Not ours.

Our response has been shameful. IMO. We could have prevented all of this.

But prevention is not the same as being the guilty perpetrator. That mantle is worn by Putin.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Sadly, many Conservatives hate Biden and have a skewed understanding of this conflict. Because Biden says he wants to help Ukraine, we must therefore oppose it. But that is incorrect.

Biden allowed Putin to invade Ukraine by not stating uncategorically that we will help defend Ukraine, 100%. Obama should have done the same with Crimea.

But that did not happen, so here we are. Angry that our leaders let us into this expensive heartbreaking mess, but still knowing that Putin is 100% the aggressor here. No matter how wrong Biden and Obama were in responding to Putin, the fact remains:

This is Putin’s war and Putin’s evil. Not ours.

Our response has been shameful. IMO. We could have prevented all of this.

But prevention is not the same as being the guilty perpetrator. That mantle is worn by Putin.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

While I agree with you that President Zombie is incompetent, I don’t agree that Russia can continue this war indefinitely.

First, President Zombie’s efforts to outlaw fossil fuels were a big part of why Putin thought he could afford to invade. Russia’s export earnings are dominated by fossil fuels, and Europe was dependent on Russian natural gas. If a Republican president and Congress changed these policies to drill everywhere, Putin would go broke quickly.

But the most important thing about the length of the war is the state of the Russian Army and its logistics.

The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old.

Casualties and equipment losses in Russia’s professional army have been high. Russia invaded with 160,000-180,000 of their most elite soldiers. At least 80,000-90,000 of them are dead or seriously wounded. Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties are double that. Also, proportional amounts of their equipment have been destroyed or captured by Ukraine. The trained soldiers are irreplaceable. Over 3,000 Rusian tanks are visually verified destroyed or captured.

You might think equipment can be replaced from reserve stocks. However, old Soviet tanks are stored in open fields subject to Russian winter weather. After 30-60 years, they need a lot of maintenance, almost complete reassembly to replace engine seals and hoses, to work. Further, many of their valuable parts have been stolen and sold. There was only 1 tank at the most recent May 9 Victory Day Parade in Red Square, a World War II vintage T-34. There are normally dozens of modern tanks.

In short, I think you have vastly over estimated Russian resources.

Last edited 1 year ago by Douglas Proudfoot
Bruce V
Bruce V
1 year ago

Now I’m conflicted. I can’t decide which one is best: UnDead President or President Zombie.

Bruce V
Bruce V
1 year ago

Now I’m conflicted. I can’t decide which one is best: UnDead President or President Zombie.

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

An erudite summary of this catastrophe.

Bill Halcott
Bill Halcott
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

You are absolutely correct.

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

So, the west shouldn’t have armed or trained the Ukrainians and left them to be over run? What about the Baltic states or Poland? Do the people who live in Eastern Europe have a voice in whether the can join NATO or not? Is the opinion of Russia more important than that of its neighbours?

Biden hasn’t escalated anything. If anything he has taken his time to release weapons and funding.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

There is only one source of blame and that is Putin. He chose to take Russia back to a hardline regime and away from detente with the West. His actions in Ukraine justify his removal and we must hope that a coup led by a more moderate faction achieves that.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

No one invaded Russia. Our huge mistake was in not defending Ukraine and saying we would from the get go. That would have deterred Russia.

Russia is only one invading anyone. Do not get this turned around in your head. Our Baltic allies are justifiably terrorized. Note Sweden wanting to join NATO after staying out all this time. Not from us pressuring them ..from fear.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

The problem with your bleating is that there is no substantive “left” in America. The dems are a centre-right party by any rational analysis, ffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPuKVG1teQ
Americans think the dems are “left” purely on the basis that they’re not yet quite as right as the republicans.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

Boris also played his part. Persuading Zelensky to take the Russians on, that west would back him all the way.
Boris and Biden, the two warmongers.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

This conflict has it’s origins back in the Obama era, it’s been going on for a while.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

Russia is always at war with its neighbors. No Russia, no wars. What will happen when China takes parts of Siberia?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

The only thing the west has done is provide weapons, which I don’t believe can be classed as escalation. Missiles targeting civilian cities and mobilising 300k men however I would class as escalation. It amazes me how Russia seems to escape all blame despite it being the aggressor who has ramped up the conflict at every opportunity

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

While I agree with you that President Zombie is incompetent, I don’t agree that Russia can continue this war indefinitely.

First, President Zombie’s efforts to outlaw fossil fuels were a big part of why Putin thought he could afford to invade. Russia’s export earnings are dominated by fossil fuels, and Europe was dependent on Russian natural gas. If a Republican president and Congress changed these policies to drill everywhere, Putin would go broke quickly.

But the most important thing about the length of the war is the state of the Russian Army and its logistics.

The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old.

Casualties and equipment losses in Russia’s professional army have been high. Russia invaded with 160,000-180,000 of their most elite soldiers. At least 80,000-90,000 of them are dead or seriously wounded. Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties are double that. Also, proportional amounts of their equipment have been destroyed or captured by Ukraine. The trained soldiers are irreplaceable. Over 3,000 Rusian tanks are visually verified destroyed or captured.

You might think equipment can be replaced from reserve stocks. However, old Soviet tanks are stored in open fields subject to Russian winter weather. After 30-60 years, they need a lot of maintenance, almost complete reassembly to replace engine seals and hoses, to work. Further, many of their valuable parts have been stolen and sold. There was only 1 tank at the most recent May 9 Victory Day Parade in Red Square, a World War II vintage T-34. There are normally dozens of modern tanks.

In short, I think you have vastly over estimated Russian resources.

Last edited 1 year ago by Douglas Proudfoot
Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

An erudite summary of this catastrophe.

Bill Halcott
Bill Halcott
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

You are absolutely correct.

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

So, the west shouldn’t have armed or trained the Ukrainians and left them to be over run? What about the Baltic states or Poland? Do the people who live in Eastern Europe have a voice in whether the can join NATO or not? Is the opinion of Russia more important than that of its neighbours?

Biden hasn’t escalated anything. If anything he has taken his time to release weapons and funding.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

There is only one source of blame and that is Putin. He chose to take Russia back to a hardline regime and away from detente with the West. His actions in Ukraine justify his removal and we must hope that a coup led by a more moderate faction achieves that.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

No one invaded Russia. Our huge mistake was in not defending Ukraine and saying we would from the get go. That would have deterred Russia.

Russia is only one invading anyone. Do not get this turned around in your head. Our Baltic allies are justifiably terrorized. Note Sweden wanting to join NATO after staying out all this time. Not from us pressuring them ..from fear.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

The problem with your bleating is that there is no substantive “left” in America. The dems are a centre-right party by any rational analysis, ffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LPuKVG1teQ
Americans think the dems are “left” purely on the basis that they’re not yet quite as right as the republicans.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  S Smith

Boris also played his part. Persuading Zelensky to take the Russians on, that west would back him all the way.
Boris and Biden, the two warmongers.

Janos Boris
Janos Boris
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Has NATO really threatened Russia? What did the threat consist in? Did it claim an inch of its territory? Did it try to impose societal change or Russia, remove its leadership or interfere in its internal affairs any more than Russia did in other countries’ ? Nato missiles or nukes are exactly at the same distance from Russia as Russia’s are from those of said Nato member countries, are they not? Nato is not an offensive alliance bent on conquest. I am sick and tired of arguments about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns”. As Dominic Sandbrook wrote in UnHerd, this is called appeasement. WW II has taught us all where that leads.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Janos Boris

Amen.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Janos Boris

Amen.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Very good, Russian bot. You can collect your five dollars from the FSB now. If there should be a balance of power, that means Ukraine must have its own nuclear weapons.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Our interest is global stability. If Putin successfully annexes more of Ukraine, he will set a precedent that strong nations like China and Iran can successfully conquer neighbors, like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, with no consequences. Putin has claimed the right to defend Russian speakers everywhere, just like Hitler claimed the right to defend German speakers. There are lots of Russian speakers in all of the former Soviet Republics, including NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. A Russian victory in Ukraine would touch off a decade of war around the world, with unpredictable consequences.

In 2008, Putin took a bite out of Georgia. The West did nothing. In 2014, Putin took a bite out of Ukraine, and the West again did nothing. Is it any wonder Putin thought he could occupy Ukranine and the West would do nothing? It has nothing to do with how close NATO is to Russia.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

Exactly right.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

Exactly right.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Russia was never threatened!

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Threaten Russia? You mean by defending borders and telling Russia it cannot invade sovereign nations? Russia is the only country invading anyone.

We built heavy defenses along the edge of Europe to defend against Russia. Our mistake was not including Ukraine. And look what happened.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Russia is a joke. They have no history of democracy and will never be able to progress out of despotism. Let’s finish the job and carve the rotten place up; give half of it to China.  

S Smith
S Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Agreed. Also, our Undead President in the U.S. and his handlers have escalated this at every turn. The U.S., before the year ends most likely, will have multitudes of troops dying en masse in Ukraine. Even if it doesn’t happen this year, it will happen next.
Jesus, it’s so sickening. But true. We are in a forever war with Russian now. At the same time, we are at our own end of empire. The U.S. is a dystopia as it is where one half of the country hates another and tent cities ring the sidewalks of even our most beautiful cities.
None of this will end well, and I send a tremendous amount of blame for this on the warmongering of Biden, his sycophants and patsies, useful idiots like Blinken, and the whole rotten edifice of the left, which used to have at least a few statesmen who were prescient when it came to these situations.

Janos Boris
Janos Boris
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Has NATO really threatened Russia? What did the threat consist in? Did it claim an inch of its territory? Did it try to impose societal change or Russia, remove its leadership or interfere in its internal affairs any more than Russia did in other countries’ ? Nato missiles or nukes are exactly at the same distance from Russia as Russia’s are from those of said Nato member countries, are they not? Nato is not an offensive alliance bent on conquest. I am sick and tired of arguments about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns”. As Dominic Sandbrook wrote in UnHerd, this is called appeasement. WW II has taught us all where that leads.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Very good, Russian bot. You can collect your five dollars from the FSB now. If there should be a balance of power, that means Ukraine must have its own nuclear weapons.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Our interest is global stability. If Putin successfully annexes more of Ukraine, he will set a precedent that strong nations like China and Iran can successfully conquer neighbors, like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, with no consequences. Putin has claimed the right to defend Russian speakers everywhere, just like Hitler claimed the right to defend German speakers. There are lots of Russian speakers in all of the former Soviet Republics, including NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. A Russian victory in Ukraine would touch off a decade of war around the world, with unpredictable consequences.

In 2008, Putin took a bite out of Georgia. The West did nothing. In 2014, Putin took a bite out of Ukraine, and the West again did nothing. Is it any wonder Putin thought he could occupy Ukranine and the West would do nothing? It has nothing to do with how close NATO is to Russia.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Russia was never threatened!

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Threaten Russia? You mean by defending borders and telling Russia it cannot invade sovereign nations? Russia is the only country invading anyone.

We built heavy defenses along the edge of Europe to defend against Russia. Our mistake was not including Ukraine. And look what happened.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Russia is a joke. They have no history of democracy and will never be able to progress out of despotism. Let’s finish the job and carve the rotten place up; give half of it to China.  

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe Blow

Yes, they can.
There has to be a balance of power.
Threaten Russia and this is what happens.
Actions have consequences.

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The following NATO countries have borders with Russia : Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Are you suggesting those countries disband their armed forces ?

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

No, he said NATO forces specifically.
He’s still wrong of course.

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Which one of those is not in NATO?

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

No-one said they were not.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

No-one said they were not.

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Which one of those is not in NATO?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

No, I’m suggesting that NATO doesn’t station heavy weapons or run exercises in those countries. A similar agreement was in place before Russia invaded Crimea

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Poland is a NATO country, it borders Kaliningrad, part of Russia.
If NATO is not allowed to station heavy weapons in bordering countries then the Poles must get rid of their tanks since their tanks are NATO tanks. They must be barred from carrying out exercises in their own country because they are part of NATO.
I can’t see them going for that.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

The easiest solution to this is to free Kaliningrad from its Russian colonial status. It had no history as Russian before WWII (hisorically a German/Prussian city) and doesn’t belong in Russia at all. In fact, there are reports that the population there are warming to the idea of leaving Russia.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well we obviously can’t give it back to the Teutonic Knights so how about Poland offering to buy it back?

There are plenty of precedents, Alaska, Louisiana, Corsica, the Dauphinois for example.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Of course, but we gave it to them. Too late for rational thought. Nothing in Eastern Europe belongs to Russia anymore than some of it might belong to Sweden or Germany or Poland or Lithuania. Russia needs to settle down. If Russia should have control of all the territory controlled during the heighth of tsarist Russia, then I guess England should take back all its old conquered territories as well. Spain too.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well we obviously can’t give it back to the Teutonic Knights so how about Poland offering to buy it back?

There are plenty of precedents, Alaska, Louisiana, Corsica, the Dauphinois for example.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Of course, but we gave it to them. Too late for rational thought. Nothing in Eastern Europe belongs to Russia anymore than some of it might belong to Sweden or Germany or Poland or Lithuania. Russia needs to settle down. If Russia should have control of all the territory controlled during the heighth of tsarist Russia, then I guess England should take back all its old conquered territories as well. Spain too.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

Nor should they.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

The easiest solution to this is to free Kaliningrad from its Russian colonial status. It had no history as Russian before WWII (hisorically a German/Prussian city) and doesn’t belong in Russia at all. In fact, there are reports that the population there are warming to the idea of leaving Russia.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

Nor should they.

John Thorogood
John Thorogood
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Rubbish! NATO has been running major annual exercises in northern Norway for decades!

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  John Thorogood

And we had dozens of exercises in what was West Germany whilst the Warsaw Pact conducted exercises in the East. And whilst it got tense, Able Archer 85 being a case in point, no one thought that the mere act of running an exercise was unacceptable.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  John Thorogood

Whilst technically a slither of Norwegian land does touch Russia, the main border in that part of the world is between Russia and Finland. Finland separates Russia from where those exercises took place

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  John Thorogood

And we had dozens of exercises in what was West Germany whilst the Warsaw Pact conducted exercises in the East. And whilst it got tense, Able Archer 85 being a case in point, no one thought that the mere act of running an exercise was unacceptable.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  John Thorogood

Whilst technically a slither of Norwegian land does touch Russia, the main border in that part of the world is between Russia and Finland. Finland separates Russia from where those exercises took place

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So appeasing Russia by not conducting exercises in neighbouring states didn’t work?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But, as everyone knows,those tiny countries cannot defend against a Russian invasion. Putin knows it too. Which is why he wants no NATO troops there. NATO has never indicated or done anything to show intent to invade Russia. That is merely Putin’s excuse. He knows NATO has no stated or unstated objective of taking any part of Russia – though I submit Kaliningrad is ridiculous and we should demand it be returned to Europe. But even that, NATO does not claim. Sheesh.

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Poland is a NATO country, it borders Kaliningrad, part of Russia.
If NATO is not allowed to station heavy weapons in bordering countries then the Poles must get rid of their tanks since their tanks are NATO tanks. They must be barred from carrying out exercises in their own country because they are part of NATO.
I can’t see them going for that.

John Thorogood
John Thorogood
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Rubbish! NATO has been running major annual exercises in northern Norway for decades!

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So appeasing Russia by not conducting exercises in neighbouring states didn’t work?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But, as everyone knows,those tiny countries cannot defend against a Russian invasion. Putin knows it too. Which is why he wants no NATO troops there. NATO has never indicated or done anything to show intent to invade Russia. That is merely Putin’s excuse. He knows NATO has no stated or unstated objective of taking any part of Russia – though I submit Kaliningrad is ridiculous and we should demand it be returned to Europe. But even that, NATO does not claim. Sheesh.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

No, he said NATO forces specifically.
He’s still wrong of course.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

No, I’m suggesting that NATO doesn’t station heavy weapons or run exercises in those countries. A similar agreement was in place before Russia invaded Crimea

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s that NATO ( a stated defensive only pact) would not move 1 inch Eastward. NATO on its borders has always been a stated red line for Putin. We lied. Would it be okay if Russia or China placed missiles in Cuba and pointed them at the US? That’s what we have done all around Russia… Why is one of those provocative, and the other not?
Because we’re good? Why are our troops in Syria? Is the US at war with Syria? where is the UN on that? Are we setting double standards? That is the kind of issues that would come up were we to seek to apply diplomacy in the world. The world is changing… eventually the US will need to actually do diplomacy, not as ones who get to control the narrative, but in a more honest way. As of right now, we are at an extremely dangerous inflection point though. Hopefully the US will actually seek to engage the Russians. 
We need to seek peace, not getting rid of the head of a world power at the cost of others lives.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Russia had a written treaty with Ukraine that it would respect its borders and sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Breaching that is much more serious surely? Putin is also on record during a state visit to the UK with Blair as saying he had no objection to Ukraine joining NATO, and that it was up to them to decide their foreign policy

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But the militarization of Eastern Ukraine with people hostile to Russia, who were mistreating and killing ethnic Russian speakers was supposed to be settled by the Minsk agreement, right? They were supposed to be able to live in peace, teach their children in the Russian language, and all of that, right?
Yet, we heard straight from Merkle and the French PM who oversaw that peace accord, that it was all a ruse to buy time for Ukraine to militarize up even more, and so NATO set about doing that.
So, I asked this somewhere before, what if Russia were doing that in Mexico? What if they armed up a bunch of America hating Mexicans, and gave them more and more military hardware. Would it be acceptable for the US to enter in and put a stop to that, yes or no? Would it be fair for us to insist on Mexico’s neutrality after defeating them, yes or no? 

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

For that to make sense you have to completely believe the Russian narrative that they intervened to protect the locals from Ukrainian Nazis. Just like they intervened in Georgia. Funny how they need to keep on doing that.

If there is a war in Mexico then your point would be relevant, but since there isn’t one it’s useless speculation. Has the US invaded Venezuela? Nope.

And of course the 2014 treaty was about buying time. The invasion of Crimea was an obvious act of aggression. Ukraine needed to have the time to equip and train to repel the next phase. This conflict hasn’t arisen out of nowhere.

Last edited 1 year ago by R Cope
Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

By the way, none of the former Soviet Republics or Ukraine were asked if they were okay with their oppressors and invaders staying to live with them and retaining all Russian language and allegiance to Russia.

That is abhorrent. Think about having the people who murdered some of your family or snitched on you to the KGB not only living next door but demanding the right to never learn the language of your country and maintaining Russian citizenship also? Who were moved there by the USSR to weaken your own national claims.

It is horrifying. And now Russia claims that they have the right to protect Russians who have never chosen to live in Russia and many of whom were not even born in Russia and use this as justification to re-invade???

Ouch.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Nonsense

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

For that to make sense you have to completely believe the Russian narrative that they intervened to protect the locals from Ukrainian Nazis. Just like they intervened in Georgia. Funny how they need to keep on doing that.

If there is a war in Mexico then your point would be relevant, but since there isn’t one it’s useless speculation. Has the US invaded Venezuela? Nope.

And of course the 2014 treaty was about buying time. The invasion of Crimea was an obvious act of aggression. Ukraine needed to have the time to equip and train to repel the next phase. This conflict hasn’t arisen out of nowhere.

Last edited 1 year ago by R Cope
Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

By the way, none of the former Soviet Republics or Ukraine were asked if they were okay with their oppressors and invaders staying to live with them and retaining all Russian language and allegiance to Russia.

That is abhorrent. Think about having the people who murdered some of your family or snitched on you to the KGB not only living next door but demanding the right to never learn the language of your country and maintaining Russian citizenship also? Who were moved there by the USSR to weaken your own national claims.

It is horrifying. And now Russia claims that they have the right to protect Russians who have never chosen to live in Russia and many of whom were not even born in Russia and use this as justification to re-invade???

Ouch.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Nonsense

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

It’s called the Bucharest Memorandum, and it’s not just between Ukraine and Russia. The USA and UK are also guarantors of Ukrainian border integrity if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, which was a legacy of the USSR.
Of course, no-one forsaw that one of the guarantors, Russia, would be the border violator. We thought we were giving a guaranty against a tinpot, non-nuclear aggressor. Mistake.
Now we are on the hook to defend Ukraine against a really dangerous aggressor and we don’t really have the will to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Clearly not on the hook or we would be at war.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Clearly not on the hook or we would be at war.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

We also, the US, signed to protect Ukraine if Russia violated this agreement. That makes us jerks.

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But the militarization of Eastern Ukraine with people hostile to Russia, who were mistreating and killing ethnic Russian speakers was supposed to be settled by the Minsk agreement, right? They were supposed to be able to live in peace, teach their children in the Russian language, and all of that, right?
Yet, we heard straight from Merkle and the French PM who oversaw that peace accord, that it was all a ruse to buy time for Ukraine to militarize up even more, and so NATO set about doing that.
So, I asked this somewhere before, what if Russia were doing that in Mexico? What if they armed up a bunch of America hating Mexicans, and gave them more and more military hardware. Would it be acceptable for the US to enter in and put a stop to that, yes or no? Would it be fair for us to insist on Mexico’s neutrality after defeating them, yes or no? 

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

It’s called the Bucharest Memorandum, and it’s not just between Ukraine and Russia. The USA and UK are also guarantors of Ukrainian border integrity if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, which was a legacy of the USSR.
Of course, no-one forsaw that one of the guarantors, Russia, would be the border violator. We thought we were giving a guaranty against a tinpot, non-nuclear aggressor. Mistake.
Now we are on the hook to defend Ukraine against a really dangerous aggressor and we don’t really have the will to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

We also, the US, signed to protect Ukraine if Russia violated this agreement. That makes us jerks.

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

“But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s”
Really? What treaty is that in ?
Gorbachev was head of the USSR, that country doesn’t exist anymore.

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

And many statesmen from the time have very different views on what was said. There was also talk about Russia joining NATO, which looks like an opportunity lost now.

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

And many statesmen from the time have very different views on what was said. There was also talk about Russia joining NATO, which looks like an opportunity lost now.

Peter Grajczak
Peter Grajczak
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Nonsense. First, we didn’t lie, it was Putin who attacked Ukraine without any provocation from NATO. Ukraine did not join NATO and the treaty did not extend an offer to Ukraine. Second, NATO is not the US; it is a coalition of sovereign nation-states each with its own concerns for independence and defenses. And the UN? When was the last time the UN actually solved a single international conflict??? Rwanda? Serbia? Please!
And engaging the Russians? What would be starting point? The guy annexes a foreign country territory, attacks civilian population, threatens to use nukes and you think it’s because he seeks an opportunity to engage in negotiations?

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

So we negotiated like the Soviet Union, making promises we didn’t keep. Shocking. Only Communists and dictators are allowed to play dirty. The West has to follow the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules, right?

All of the new NATO countries had a well founded fear of Russian reoccupation. Wasn’t protecting their freedom and independence more important than promises we made to Gorbaachev?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

Those agreements were largely with the Soviet. It dissolved.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

Those agreements were largely with the Soviet. It dissolved.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Good points and in particular the disgraceful US invasion of Syria!

Why has this outrage been so ignored? Even NOW there are about 1000 US troops in Syria, a clear of breach of so called International Law.

The blatant US support for IRA* terrorism via the odious NORAID was bad enough, but this Syrian scandal really does “take the biscuit”.

Assuming one accepts the narrative, is it any wonder that a bunch of mainly Saudi nutters decided to do a Kamikaze on New York City a few years ago?

(* Otherwise known as Council House Killers.)

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

I agree we should not be in Syria. That does not make Russia right in Ukraine.

False logic.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

I agree we should not be in Syria. That does not make Russia right in Ukraine.

False logic.

Muiris de Bhulbh
Muiris de Bhulbh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

There is no evidence that this promise was made. Gorbachev has apparently denied that it was made. If it was made, it was to the Head of State of a state that no longer exists.
NATO does not ‘decide’ to expand. Countries apply to join, as Sweden & Finland have recently done, in the face of a perceived threat presumably.
It is reasonable however to address Russia’s perceived security concerns, as well as those of it’s neighbours.. If Russia feels safe, we are all safer. If there are to be limitations of deployment of forces (especially non native forces) in states adjacent to Russia, I expect that Russia must accept similar restrictions.
If this ends up with reduced military spending all around, that’s a win win.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

Not where this is heading. And the Ukrainian people are the biggest losers.

If this drags on, the chances of millions Ukrainians who fled returning is almost nil. Plus the hundreds of thousands being killed in war. The destruction of entire towns and parts of cities.

Putin needs to stop, but as this article states, he no longer can. He needs something big to declare victory now and retain his popularity.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago

Not where this is heading. And the Ukrainian people are the biggest losers.

If this drags on, the chances of millions Ukrainians who fled returning is almost nil. Plus the hundreds of thousands being killed in war. The destruction of entire towns and parts of cities.

Putin needs to stop, but as this article states, he no longer can. He needs something big to declare victory now and retain his popularity.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

There was no agreement about NATO expansion.
Countries like Poland and others joined NATO because they had hundreds of years of experience of Russia genocidal imperialism.
Even Sweden and Finland realised now that being neutral is foolish position to adopt when faced with gangster state like Russia.
People like you are in Lenin words “useful idiots”.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

The US also promised to protect Ukraine if they gave their nukes to Russia after Soviet dissolved. Woopsies.

A written treaty with the USSR is only binding if the two sides rewrite it and sign it with the newly created countries after that dissolution. Russia IS NOT the USSR. Ask Latvia.

Fair or no.

Plus, lives were lost fighting Russians to gain freedom after that treaty was signed. So, it is not like Gorbachev signed it to dissolve the Soviet. He had no such intention and would tell anyone who listened.

That treaty is therefore no longer valid. The USSR no longer exists.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Russia had a written treaty with Ukraine that it would respect its borders and sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Breaching that is much more serious surely? Putin is also on record during a state visit to the UK with Blair as saying he had no objection to Ukraine joining NATO, and that it was up to them to decide their foreign policy

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

“But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s”
Really? What treaty is that in ?
Gorbachev was head of the USSR, that country doesn’t exist anymore.

Peter Grajczak
Peter Grajczak
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Nonsense. First, we didn’t lie, it was Putin who attacked Ukraine without any provocation from NATO. Ukraine did not join NATO and the treaty did not extend an offer to Ukraine. Second, NATO is not the US; it is a coalition of sovereign nation-states each with its own concerns for independence and defenses. And the UN? When was the last time the UN actually solved a single international conflict??? Rwanda? Serbia? Please!
And engaging the Russians? What would be starting point? The guy annexes a foreign country territory, attacks civilian population, threatens to use nukes and you think it’s because he seeks an opportunity to engage in negotiations?

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

So we negotiated like the Soviet Union, making promises we didn’t keep. Shocking. Only Communists and dictators are allowed to play dirty. The West has to follow the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules, right?

All of the new NATO countries had a well founded fear of Russian reoccupation. Wasn’t protecting their freedom and independence more important than promises we made to Gorbaachev?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

Good points and in particular the disgraceful US invasion of Syria!

Why has this outrage been so ignored? Even NOW there are about 1000 US troops in Syria, a clear of breach of so called International Law.

The blatant US support for IRA* terrorism via the odious NORAID was bad enough, but this Syrian scandal really does “take the biscuit”.

Assuming one accepts the narrative, is it any wonder that a bunch of mainly Saudi nutters decided to do a Kamikaze on New York City a few years ago?

(* Otherwise known as Council House Killers.)

Muiris de Bhulbh
Muiris de Bhulbh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

There is no evidence that this promise was made. Gorbachev has apparently denied that it was made. If it was made, it was to the Head of State of a state that no longer exists.
NATO does not ‘decide’ to expand. Countries apply to join, as Sweden & Finland have recently done, in the face of a perceived threat presumably.
It is reasonable however to address Russia’s perceived security concerns, as well as those of it’s neighbours.. If Russia feels safe, we are all safer. If there are to be limitations of deployment of forces (especially non native forces) in states adjacent to Russia, I expect that Russia must accept similar restrictions.
If this ends up with reduced military spending all around, that’s a win win.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

There was no agreement about NATO expansion.
Countries like Poland and others joined NATO because they had hundreds of years of experience of Russia genocidal imperialism.
Even Sweden and Finland realised now that being neutral is foolish position to adopt when faced with gangster state like Russia.
People like you are in Lenin words “useful idiots”.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

The US also promised to protect Ukraine if they gave their nukes to Russia after Soviet dissolved. Woopsies.

A written treaty with the USSR is only binding if the two sides rewrite it and sign it with the newly created countries after that dissolution. Russia IS NOT the USSR. Ask Latvia.

Fair or no.

Plus, lives were lost fighting Russians to gain freedom after that treaty was signed. So, it is not like Gorbachev signed it to dissolve the Soviet. He had no such intention and would tell anyone who listened.

That treaty is therefore no longer valid. The USSR no longer exists.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

One of the main reasons Russia invaded was to stop Ukraine joining NATO and you think that is a solution ?
The Warsaw Pact no longer exists and at the same time NATO needs to be disbanded.
It has no purpose now that the cold war is over.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Russias actions in Ukraine show that NATO is vital for those nations in Eastern Europe

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Is that why we broke all our promises and made them NATO nations and pointed a bunch of missles at Russia? What if They did that in Cuba, would we tolorate that?

Janos Boris
Janos Boris
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

They were not “made” NATO members. They joined of. their own free will by parliamentary resolution plus referenda. “Open door policy is included in NATO’s charter, meaning that any country can join if it so wishes, provided it meets the conditions of entry.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Janos Boris

What treaty with Russia are they talking about? The Soviet is gone.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Janos Boris

What treaty with Russia are they talking about? The Soviet is gone.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

JFK and Kissinger sure didn’t: see the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis – which was resolved only when Kennedy agreed to remove the US medium-range ICBMs then stationed in Turkey.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

What treaty with Russia are we violating? May I ask?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

What treaty with Russia are we violating? May I ask?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

No one forced countries like Poland and now Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
It is incredible that even after Russian invasion of Ukraine people like you still pretend that it is NATO which is at fault.
Read some history.
Whether it is Tzarism or Communism or Putinism it is always the same Russian genocidal imperialism.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

The treaty was with the USSR. The USSR, at the time, still occupied Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus, etc.

The USSR dissolved. The treaty is null.

Janos Boris
Janos Boris
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

They were not “made” NATO members. They joined of. their own free will by parliamentary resolution plus referenda. “Open door policy is included in NATO’s charter, meaning that any country can join if it so wishes, provided it meets the conditions of entry.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

JFK and Kissinger sure didn’t: see the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis – which was resolved only when Kennedy agreed to remove the US medium-range ICBMs then stationed in Turkey.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

No one forced countries like Poland and now Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
It is incredible that even after Russian invasion of Ukraine people like you still pretend that it is NATO which is at fault.
Read some history.
Whether it is Tzarism or Communism or Putinism it is always the same Russian genocidal imperialism.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve White

The treaty was with the USSR. The USSR, at the time, still occupied Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus, etc.

The USSR dissolved. The treaty is null.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Not so.
It is provocative.
That exactly where we are where we are.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

How about asking the nations bordering Russia – the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Finland, Norway, etc – whether they consider NATO valuable ?
But we already know the answer to that. They know from bitter experience that Russia is a bad and untrustworthy neighbour.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

How about asking the nations bordering Russia – the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Finland, Norway, etc – whether they consider NATO valuable ?
But we already know the answer to that. They know from bitter experience that Russia is a bad and untrustworthy neighbour.

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Is that why we broke all our promises and made them NATO nations and pointed a bunch of missles at Russia? What if They did that in Cuba, would we tolorate that?

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Not so.
It is provocative.
That exactly where we are where we are.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Sh_t up bot. Go back to Russia.

Kerry Davie
Kerry Davie
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

It’s been replaced by a ‘hot war’; NATO is more relevant and needed than ever. The Warsaw Pact was ever only Russia (aka USSR) anyway; it hasn’t gone away in threat terms.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Kerry Davie

The Warsaw Pact and all other agreements with the USSR are null and void. The USSR no longer exists. Treaties are only valid if signed agreements are made to continue said treaties with Russia. We are under no legal obligation to continue treaties that are dangerous to once occupied territories like the Baltics or Ukraine. They are free countries now and can negotiate whatever they want with us and we with them.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Kerry Davie

The Warsaw Pact and all other agreements with the USSR are null and void. The USSR no longer exists. Treaties are only valid if signed agreements are made to continue said treaties with Russia. We are under no legal obligation to continue treaties that are dangerous to once occupied territories like the Baltics or Ukraine. They are free countries now and can negotiate whatever they want with us and we with them.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Shades of August 1914 again I’m afraid.

Still what else would one expect from a “rather nasty species of African ape”?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

We were not letting Ukraine join NATO, but they will now.

Russia invaded to annex parts of Ukraine. With the hopes of taking at least all of Eastern Ukraine back. He has stated he believes in restoring Russia to its true borders.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

One of the main reasons Putin invaded is that the cowardly and corrupt little bunker-hunker rat was scared of a democracy on his doorstep, and the other main reason is that he, by his own repeated admissions, considers that Ukraine does not exist, and really are Russians, even if they need to be bombed into changing their minds.  

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Russias actions in Ukraine show that NATO is vital for those nations in Eastern Europe

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Sh_t up bot. Go back to Russia.

Kerry Davie
Kerry Davie
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

It’s been replaced by a ‘hot war’; NATO is more relevant and needed than ever. The Warsaw Pact was ever only Russia (aka USSR) anyway; it hasn’t gone away in threat terms.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Shades of August 1914 again I’m afraid.

Still what else would one expect from a “rather nasty species of African ape”?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

We were not letting Ukraine join NATO, but they will now.

Russia invaded to annex parts of Ukraine. With the hopes of taking at least all of Eastern Ukraine back. He has stated he believes in restoring Russia to its true borders.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

One of the main reasons Putin invaded is that the cowardly and corrupt little bunker-hunker rat was scared of a democracy on his doorstep, and the other main reason is that he, by his own repeated admissions, considers that Ukraine does not exist, and really are Russians, even if they need to be bombed into changing their minds.  

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Ironic that the invasion was because Ukraine would not fulfil what you describe, as per the Minsk agmts (excluding NATO, which seems a rather incongruent addition – how about Ukraine remains unaligned?

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

That will have to happen, it’s not even negotiable.

S Smith
S Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Agreed, but not according to the extremely incompetent Jake Sullivan who will get us into WW 3 soon enough.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Fortunately, you’re not negotiating. Your opinion counts for nothing here – just as mine does.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

What will?

S Smith
S Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Agreed, but not according to the extremely incompetent Jake Sullivan who will get us into WW 3 soon enough.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Fortunately, you’re not negotiating. Your opinion counts for nothing here – just as mine does.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

What will?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

Because Ukraine remaining unaligned would leave it under the boot of the Kremlin, something it’s population clearly doesn’t want

Last edited 1 year ago by Billy Bob
Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

some of it’s population….. and I’m not sure you’re right – being non-aligned is being like Switzerland

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Exactly.

Russia has zero right to dictate that other countries not join alliances. We see now exactly why Russia tries to force countries to sign such agreements.

People supporting Russia need to just stop. If they think Rissia deserves to take back the land that the USSR held, then just say so and argue for that. Stop pretending that is NOT the goal.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

some of it’s population….. and I’m not sure you’re right – being non-aligned is being like Switzerland

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Exactly.

Russia has zero right to dictate that other countries not join alliances. We see now exactly why Russia tries to force countries to sign such agreements.

People supporting Russia need to just stop. If they think Rissia deserves to take back the land that the USSR held, then just say so and argue for that. Stop pretending that is NOT the goal.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

People bringing up Minsk agreements need to know that Russia had ALREADY invaded Ukraine at this time.

Who started this war again? Not us. Not Ukraine.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

That will have to happen, it’s not even negotiable.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

Because Ukraine remaining unaligned would leave it under the boot of the Kremlin, something it’s population clearly doesn’t want

Last edited 1 year ago by Billy Bob
Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

People bringing up Minsk agreements need to know that Russia had ALREADY invaded Ukraine at this time.

Who started this war again? Not us. Not Ukraine.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So now it isn’t a simple withdrawal from Ukraine. There must be a referendum in Crimea, which wasn’t on the table before the war. And Ukraine joins NATO, the possibility of which played at least some role in the invasion in the first place.

What’s the goal here? A return to Ukraine prewar or crushing Putin?

Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Jim says: which wasn’t on the table before the war. A lot of things weren’t on the table before the war, including the war. The collapse of Russia faced with western arms and technique in highly motivated Ukrainian hands, all as a result of Russian aggression, has put a lot of things “on the table”.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Edward Seymour

So now we’ve moved beyond defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine to the collapse of Russia. And you can’t see how this could go terribly wrong?

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Excuse me? No one said that. No one.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Excuse me? No one said that. No one.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Edward Seymour

What ‘collapse of Russia’ would that be? The rouble’s value is now higher than it was prior to the invasion and western sanctions have barely dented the Russian economy – unlike those of Germany and Britain….

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Yes, China and India are good friends to have

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

Yes, China and India are good friends to have

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Edward Seymour

So now we’ve moved beyond defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine to the collapse of Russia. And you can’t see how this could go terribly wrong?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Edward Seymour

What ‘collapse of Russia’ would that be? The rouble’s value is now higher than it was prior to the invasion and western sanctions have barely dented the Russian economy – unlike those of Germany and Britain….

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I thought you were calling for negotiation to end the conflict? A negotiation involves compromise and both sides offering something up surely? Or are you actually calling for a Ukrainian surrender and for it to give up its foreign policy?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Clearly, Putin can’t survive Ukraine regaining their territories, so both.
I am really puzzled why people keep mentioning referendum.
There was one in 1991 with Crimea voting 54% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Luhansk and Donbas voted over 83% for it.
All this talk of Eastern Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia is blatant lie.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The question is more about Putin’s goals. If we give him more and more territory that he has taken by force and say, Okay – where will it end? You know the truth.

Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Jim says: which wasn’t on the table before the war. A lot of things weren’t on the table before the war, including the war. The collapse of Russia faced with western arms and technique in highly motivated Ukrainian hands, all as a result of Russian aggression, has put a lot of things “on the table”.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I thought you were calling for negotiation to end the conflict? A negotiation involves compromise and both sides offering something up surely? Or are you actually calling for a Ukrainian surrender and for it to give up its foreign policy?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Clearly, Putin can’t survive Ukraine regaining their territories, so both.
I am really puzzled why people keep mentioning referendum.
There was one in 1991 with Crimea voting 54% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Luhansk and Donbas voted over 83% for it.
All this talk of Eastern Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia is blatant lie.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The question is more about Putin’s goals. If we give him more and more territory that he has taken by force and say, Okay – where will it end? You know the truth.

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So Poland and the Baltic states aren’t allowed a military? That approach would force Nato members to leave which is unacceptable. Russia needs to understand that a defensive alliance isn’t a threat unless provoked.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Again this nonsense about referendums.
In Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 83% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
This war is not about some territory. It is about stopping Ukraine from joining EU and developing into modern European country.
Since Putin failed in conquering Ukraine, he now wants to destroy it.
Reality is that if West accepts Russia nuclear blackmail countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland will have no choice but to go nuclear.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Russia wants “Greater Russia” back. Putin has made that clear. Even if he accepted such an offer, it would be a ruse to get us to remove defenses on the border.

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

NATO does not have battalions or weapons to station or not station in a country – bordering Russia or not. Nato alliance members have their own armed forces and weapons. Russia cannot be allowed to dictate which sovereign countries join the NATO alliance, or what sort of military other countries are allowed to have.

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The following NATO countries have borders with Russia : Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Are you suggesting those countries disband their armed forces ?

Steve White
Steve White
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

But the US and NATO promised Gorbachev back in the 1990s that NATO ( a stated defensive only pact) would not move 1 inch Eastward. NATO on its borders has always been a stated red line for Putin. We lied. Would it be okay if Russia or China placed missiles in Cuba and pointed them at the US? That’s what we have done all around Russia… Why is one of those provocative, and the other not?
Because we’re good? Why are our troops in Syria? Is the US at war with Syria? where is the UN on that? Are we setting double standards? That is the kind of issues that would come up were we to seek to apply diplomacy in the world. The world is changing… eventually the US will need to actually do diplomacy, not as ones who get to control the narrative, but in a more honest way. As of right now, we are at an extremely dangerous inflection point though. Hopefully the US will actually seek to engage the Russians. 
We need to seek peace, not getting rid of the head of a world power at the cost of others lives.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve White
Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

One of the main reasons Russia invaded was to stop Ukraine joining NATO and you think that is a solution ?
The Warsaw Pact no longer exists and at the same time NATO needs to be disbanded.
It has no purpose now that the cold war is over.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Ironic that the invasion was because Ukraine would not fulfil what you describe, as per the Minsk agmts (excluding NATO, which seems a rather incongruent addition – how about Ukraine remains unaligned?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So now it isn’t a simple withdrawal from Ukraine. There must be a referendum in Crimea, which wasn’t on the table before the war. And Ukraine joins NATO, the possibility of which played at least some role in the invasion in the first place.

What’s the goal here? A return to Ukraine prewar or crushing Putin?

R Cope
R Cope
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

So Poland and the Baltic states aren’t allowed a military? That approach would force Nato members to leave which is unacceptable. Russia needs to understand that a defensive alliance isn’t a threat unless provoked.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Again this nonsense about referendums.
In Ukraine independence referendum in 1991 both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 83% for being part of independent Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
This war is not about some territory. It is about stopping Ukraine from joining EU and developing into modern European country.
Since Putin failed in conquering Ukraine, he now wants to destroy it.
Reality is that if West accepts Russia nuclear blackmail countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland will have no choice but to go nuclear.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Russia wants “Greater Russia” back. Putin has made that clear. Even if he accepted such an offer, it would be a ruse to get us to remove defenses on the border.

Philip Stott
Philip Stott
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I read a convincing argument in The Daily Telegraph, by an ex-military chap, that the US could neutralise Putin with an attack using conventional weapons should he drop a nuke – I’ll try and dig it out.

jimmy Speakes
jimmy Speakes
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

Lol, that’s problem Western mentality. Yeah, they will strike with conventional weapons. When you hit a guy who is willing to fight to the death and it is ingrained into their core beliefs, you better kill him first shot. Because, I shit you not, he will come back at you with everything he has got.

It was all fun and games Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc.. and every country the US & Nato(the US puppet child) tried to control but couldnt(even debilitated as they were) because the were ready to fight to death. They didn’t have the ability to successfully defeat the west but they did keep the west from defeating and controlling them.

Putting has the ability to go head to head with US and whether he wins or not is irrelevant. He will cause irreparable and crippling damage and the US will cease to be a major world power. Likely sinking to third world stayus where it is currently doing a fine job on its own to gethyenas.

Poke the bear, he bites off you arm and leg while you reach for your gun. Sure you kill him, but your still missing your arm and leg and since you used your ammo on the bear, well, now you eaten by the lion with any scraps left going to the heyenas.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  jimmy Speakes

Killing the bear forever is a real option. Nuke Russia and it disappears forever as it is made up of conquered non-Russian ethnic groups. The neighbors will take what’s left over after the second or third wave of nukes hit.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  jimmy Speakes

You are not entirely wrong. We are not rich enough to take the long economic road to ruin Putin as we did in the past. He has wealthy allies this time around and the West is not completely united or determined.

However, if we had the will, we could, of course, defeat Russia. But if we go to war with Russia now, many millions will die. Here and even more so in Russia.

Russia is relatively poor and has nothing to lose at the moment compared with the West. That makes people fight harder and bear more. See Ukrainians…they, too, have nothing to lose. They are fierce.

What the West wants to avoid, unlike Putin, is the loss of even more lives in even more countries. But we also cannot just let Putin win. As we know this will continue.

So, we have to face facts. And gird ourselves unless we are willing to allow Putin to reclaim the Soviet territories and let millions of people down.

It is an awful awful thing Putin has done. I fear he will find that the US will honor our obligations to our allies and will thus cause the deaths of millions more people in the end. By not being willing to back down. And give back Ukraine.

Trust me, he can keep Crimea if he gives up on Eastern Ukraine. But he will not.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  jimmy Speakes

No he doesn’t. You’re living in the past. Russia’s military scare nobody.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  jimmy Speakes

Killing the bear forever is a real option. Nuke Russia and it disappears forever as it is made up of conquered non-Russian ethnic groups. The neighbors will take what’s left over after the second or third wave of nukes hit.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  jimmy Speakes

You are not entirely wrong. We are not rich enough to take the long economic road to ruin Putin as we did in the past. He has wealthy allies this time around and the West is not completely united or determined.

However, if we had the will, we could, of course, defeat Russia. But if we go to war with Russia now, many millions will die. Here and even more so in Russia.

Russia is relatively poor and has nothing to lose at the moment compared with the West. That makes people fight harder and bear more. See Ukrainians…they, too, have nothing to lose. They are fierce.

What the West wants to avoid, unlike Putin, is the loss of even more lives in even more countries. But we also cannot just let Putin win. As we know this will continue.

So, we have to face facts. And gird ourselves unless we are willing to allow Putin to reclaim the Soviet territories and let millions of people down.

It is an awful awful thing Putin has done. I fear he will find that the US will honor our obligations to our allies and will thus cause the deaths of millions more people in the end. By not being willing to back down. And give back Ukraine.

Trust me, he can keep Crimea if he gives up on Eastern Ukraine. But he will not.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  jimmy Speakes

No he doesn’t. You’re living in the past. Russia’s military scare nobody.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

‘Neutralise’, eh? An exploding cigar, perhaps? Or maybe a steel-rimmed bowler hat? More 007-level Atlanticist fantasies of US omnipotence…
Well, they’d better get on with it, before the Puppet-in-Chief, Creepy Joe, ‘neutraises’ himself by falling down the stairs again.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

We could do that before tens of thousands are killed with a nuke too.

jimmy Speakes
jimmy Speakes
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

Lol, that’s problem Western mentality. Yeah, they will strike with conventional weapons. When you hit a guy who is willing to fight to the death and it is ingrained into their core beliefs, you better kill him first shot. Because, I shit you not, he will come back at you with everything he has got.

It was all fun and games Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc.. and every country the US & Nato(the US puppet child) tried to control but couldnt(even debilitated as they were) because the were ready to fight to death. They didn’t have the ability to successfully defeat the west but they did keep the west from defeating and controlling them.

Putting has the ability to go head to head with US and whether he wins or not is irrelevant. He will cause irreparable and crippling damage and the US will cease to be a major world power. Likely sinking to third world stayus where it is currently doing a fine job on its own to gethyenas.

Poke the bear, he bites off you arm and leg while you reach for your gun. Sure you kill him, but your still missing your arm and leg and since you used your ammo on the bear, well, now you eaten by the lion with any scraps left going to the heyenas.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

‘Neutralise’, eh? An exploding cigar, perhaps? Or maybe a steel-rimmed bowler hat? More 007-level Atlanticist fantasies of US omnipotence…
Well, they’d better get on with it, before the Puppet-in-Chief, Creepy Joe, ‘neutraises’ himself by falling down the stairs again.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

We could do that before tens of thousands are killed with a nuke too.

Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Yes, exactly that.

Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The closest thing I can see to a solution is to keep the war as short as it can be kept by doing everything we can do as quickly as we can do it to assure Ukrainian victory. Ukraine must be armed to the teeth, and the Russian economy must be broken so as to make its war effort unaffordable. And quickly. The longer this goes on, the more problems of every kind will proliferate. Putin remembers Chernobyl and doesn’t want radioactive fallout blowing back into Russia. He has actually set the stage for his backing off of Ukraine by telling his people that his “special military operation” was a pre-emptive move to keep NATO from invading Russia. Russia will not be invaded by NATO, so he can claim “victory” whenever he wants to. The main reason he keeps going is the not unrealistic hope that in November 2024 the Americans will put Donald Trump back into the White House and US policy toward Russia and Ukraine will suddenly be much more to his liking.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

And a large herd of wild unicorns will be discovered in the Arctic.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

The only way this will be over before spring 2025 is if Zelensky gets overthrown and peace talks follow, leading to a new border roughly along the ceasefire lines.
With the money to be made by Blackrock and Goldman Sachs buying up Ukraine at 3c a square mile using near-0% interest Fed Reserve money – or rather, ‘financing reconstruction’ – Blinken and the Wall Street/ Military-Industrial complex will be doing all they can to keep their stooge in place and the war bubbling along nicely.
Where’s that promised ‘massive counter-offensive’, though? It could be that the likelihood of a Russian tactical nuclear strike is giving pause for thought, though more likely it’s that with the need to absorb new kit and training and set up logistics systems, no such operation would be viable any time this year: 2024 at the earliest.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Even one of main appeasers of Russia, prof Meirshaimer, says in his interview on Spectator TV that USA will not allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine because of many geopolitical downsides, regardless of who is USA president.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Unfortunately, unless we could get China and India away from Russia, this vision is fantasy economically.

What I fear is Putin pushing us into this war. Russia and the West going broke fighting this war.

China watching and waiting being the economic engine that sustains the war. But not entering the war.

Egads.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Not that I support us doing nothing either, but we need to think strategically to the end or we are toast. Putin already stopped thinking.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

And a large herd of wild unicorns will be discovered in the Arctic.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

The only way this will be over before spring 2025 is if Zelensky gets overthrown and peace talks follow, leading to a new border roughly along the ceasefire lines.
With the money to be made by Blackrock and Goldman Sachs buying up Ukraine at 3c a square mile using near-0% interest Fed Reserve money – or rather, ‘financing reconstruction’ – Blinken and the Wall Street/ Military-Industrial complex will be doing all they can to keep their stooge in place and the war bubbling along nicely.
Where’s that promised ‘massive counter-offensive’, though? It could be that the likelihood of a Russian tactical nuclear strike is giving pause for thought, though more likely it’s that with the need to absorb new kit and training and set up logistics systems, no such operation would be viable any time this year: 2024 at the earliest.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Even one of main appeasers of Russia, prof Meirshaimer, says in his interview on Spectator TV that USA will not allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine because of many geopolitical downsides, regardless of who is USA president.

Yana Way
Yana Way
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Unfortunately, unless we could get China and India away from Russia, this vision is fantasy economically.

What I fear is Putin pushing us into this war. Russia and the West going broke fighting this war.

China watching and waiting being the economic engine that sustains the war. But not entering the war.

Egads.

Yana Way