Ukraine invasion

A non-partisan research post - London
A revisit
What is you prediction about the war?
A non-partisan research post

I entertain no predication.
History is full of surprises.
History also bears testimony that old enemies can eventual be friends and work together.

The poetry goes like this.

I have never seen the show and no one has leaked me any spoilers.
The peculiarity about this show is that the dramas are real and actors and cast take a hit, even death.
The directors, producers and sponsors fight amongst themselves, are isolated from the dramas but have an invested interest in the show.
If enough audience members disapprove of the show the producers will cut loses and close the show.
The show is a runaway tour de force and like a hurricane sweeps all before its path.
Any dissenting critique results in eviction at some venues and immediate imprisonment at other venues.
From my very limited unimportant seating position direct access and appeal to the directors, producers and sponsors of the show is an unrealistic and impractical objective.
I can shout and scream all I want on the side of the tracks at the impending approach of a high speed bullet train. It will not stop.
From my very limited unimportant seating position I can, occasionally, throw on stage small band aid of alleviation for the wounded suffering cast.

My consideration is the show may go any which way - Russian, Ukraine, NATO, Tactical, Strategic, better the devil you know than the devil you don't know, better the new devil - tomorrow will reveal all.

The show is not over until the lady with the big voice sings.
When the lady with the big voice sings it may - or may not* - be time to buy a basket of unleveraged plain vanilla stocks like crazy for target 100% ROI.

See 5 yr charts - TradingView (free) - go figure - * examples: (see below)

* amongst many considerations - if the show goes strategic may not be much enthusiasm for anything.

The New York Times: There's a saying among those who work around Cher. If there's a nuclear war, only two species will survive: the cockroaches and Cher.

I find both camps of interest.
From West side of the fence I find #3,356 interesting:
Considerations of Sevastopol’s strategic importance to Russia and influence on the Ukraine war.

Your views are well documented.

* examples:

So the many Putin 'N' word threats did not happen - * amongst many considerations - if the show goes strategic may not be much enthusiasm for anything.
And while the political pundits called this that or the other, I am not aware of any commenting on or calling the market

Of interest - with reference to above stated considerations 5 yr : 2022-2023 & 2023-2024

Andrew Lawrence
114K subscribers

Add a comment…

2 days ago
It is all so sickening. Not a thought for the Russian and Ukrainian kids whose lives have ended ... for nothing. They are forgotten. They are tools. Zelensky gets all the praise. Meanwhile he's busy buying his 4th luxury house... HE WILL NEVER die for Ukraine - he's no fool.

Comment Phylo: Sound traumatised.

Ineffectual traumatised tears and delude ineffectual sanctimonious evangelisings saving us from nuclear horror are of zero help to the kids.
War wounded, starving or traumatised children are not in need of ineffectual bleeding hearts and deluded ineffectual evangelising saints.
Self appointed vocal cotributions are no contributions: merley a medley of forgottens lost down the wind.

Their need is immediate emergency care which is dependent on - as far as the combat zone uninvolved are concerned is - 'hard currency'.

It looks like this

One: Select charity, go to the donation page and insert an amount from $1 to £7 trillion
Two: Choose payment method

Three: Process through payment method and arrive at the happy page.

Four: Charity donation receipt will be sent to email and bank statement will reflect payment.

Not exactly Russian children effected by the currrnet war, but well established charity.
Should have looked closer. Next time.
On second look - no Russian charity found for war effected children.

Same procedure as above

At my wife's suggestion, we have conducted curiosity experiments as outlined below across a number of trading forums, offering both Ukrainian and Russian contingents the opportunity for chump change* constructive engagement regarding their supported allegiances
* Champ change: a small amount.

Suffice to say - Zero chump change takers.
Somewhat strange for trading forums where trading geniuses are one a dozen and the objective is ... ? :unsure:

or - of alternative choice

As above
2022 curiosity experiment - Zero chump change takers.

2023 curiosity experiment - Zero chump change takers


Etc.,etc., etc.
Last edited:

Advance: After the capture of Avdiivka, events in special operation zone to develop rapidly
A non-partisan research post - London
Putin's new Nordic nightmare: How strategically crucial Baltic Sea will become 'NATO's lake' after Sweden was cleared to join the alliance in huge blow for Kremlin regime
  • Russia will be the only country around the Baltic Sea not in the military alliance

How Finland and Sweden Would Transform NATO’s Military Capabilities | WSJ

How would Sweden and Finland joining NATO help the alliance?
A non-partisan research post - London
'Russia should be offered Nato membership'

The Truth About Ukraine Starts to Leak Out

But claiming Russia was provoked into war still means you're a Russian stooge​

"The conspiracies about Ukraine are like all the rest - after a few years the conspiracy theorists are proven correct. First you are called a Russian stooge for suggesting NATO expansion may have provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, before the truth starts to slowly drip out. A few more years and The Guardian will be lecturing us on biolabs in Ukraine! . . ."

None of this should come as any surprise to anyone who follows this thread.

A non-partisan research post - London
The Truth About Ukraine Starts to Leak Out

But claiming Russia was provoked into war still means you're a Russian stooge​

"The conspiracies about Ukraine are like all the rest - after a few years the conspiracy theorists are proven correct. First you are called a Russian stooge for suggesting NATO expansion may have provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, before the truth starts to slowly drip out. A few more years and The Guardian will be lecturing us on biolabs in Ukraine! . . ."

None of this should come as any surprise to anyone who follows this thread.

a quick gander and ....​

NATO's rebuttal..copy & past from NATO site (note: within limits of available time did not find any direct Russian 'authoritative' citations for comparison - unhappy YouTubers with psychological and personality disorders grinding their agenda axes are not authoritative or credible)

NATO: Setting the record straight

De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO​

Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has shattered peace in Europe. NATO's Strategic Concept states that Russia is the most significant and direct threat to Allies' security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Russia wants to establish spheres of influence and control other countries through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. It uses conventional, cyber and hybrid means – including disinformation – against NATO Allies and partners.

NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. The Alliance will continue to respond to Russian threats and actions in a united and responsible way. We are significantly strengthening our deterrence and defence, supporting our partners, and enhancing our resilience. This includes calling out Russia's actions and countering disinformation.


NATO is at war with Russia in Ukraine​

NATO is not at war with Russia. We do not seek confrontation with Russia. NATO supports Ukraine in its right to self-defence, as enshrined in the UN Charter. In response to Russia's aggressive actions, we continue to strengthen our deterrence and defence to make sure there is no room for misunderstanding that NATO is ready to protect and defend every Ally.
NATO is a defensive Alliance. Our core task is to keep our nations safe. At the Vilnius Summit, Allies reaffirmed their iron-clad commitment to defend every inch of Allied territory at all times. We will continue to protect our one billion people, and safeguard freedom and democracy, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.


NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War​

Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949. This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia included provisions on NATO membership. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. Russia does not have a veto.
The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either."
Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said.

The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone.


NATO is aggressive​

NATO is a defensive alliance. It does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, or any other nations. NATO did not invade Georgia. NATO did not invade Ukraine. Russia did.
NATO made significant efforts over many years to establish a strategic partnership with Russia. We established the NATO-Russia Council and worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning, even during periods of NATO enlargement.
It was Russia that gradually chipped away at any hopes of peaceful cooperation, with its pattern of increasing aggressive behaviour, from Grozny to Georgia and Aleppo to Ukraine.
NATO Allies engaged in persistent diplomatic efforts to convince Russia to change its course. NATO held a last meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in January 2022 to call on President Putin to step back from the brink. President Putin chose war.


NATO's deployments are a threat to Russia​

In response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of eastern Ukraine in 2014, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia, while maintaining political and military dialogue. We deployed four multinational battlegroups to the Baltic States and Poland in 2016. Before Russia's aggressive actions in 2014, there was no deployment of combat-ready NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance.
Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO has further reinforced its deterrence and defence posture. We have doubled the number of multinational battlegroups in the east of the Alliance from four to eight and put 40,000 troops under direct NATO command. We will continue to do what is needed to protect and defend every inch of Allied soil.
NATO exercises and military deployments are not directed against Russia, or any other country. Outside NATO territory, the Alliance has a KFOR peacekeeping mission in Kosovo based on a United Nations Security Council mandate, and a train and assist mission in Iraq contributing to the fight against terrorism at the request of the Iraqi government.
It is Russia's aggressive actions that have shattered peace in Europe and are undermining international security and stability. As well as its aggression against Ukraine, Russia has military bases and soldiers in Georgia and Moldova without the consent of their governments.


NATO is encircling Russia​

Russia is the world's largest country geographically. It is almost twice the size of the US and China.
When Finland joined the Alliance in April 2023, NATO's land border with Russia more than doubled. Even after Finland's accession, only 11% of Russia's land border is shared with NATO countries.
No one has backed Russia into a corner. It is hard to encircle a country with eleven time zones.


Ukraine will not join NATO​

Ukraine will become a member of NATO. NATO supports the every country's right to choose its own security arrangements, including Ukraine. NATO's door remains open. NATO Allies decide on NATO membership. Russia does not have a veto.
At the Vilnius Summit, Allies reaffirmed the commitment they made at the 2008 Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance when conditions are met and Allies agree. They agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan, changing Ukraine's membership path from a two-step to a one-step process.
NATO is stepping up its political and practical cooperation with Ukraine. President Zelenskyy attended the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the Vilnius Summit, a platform for crisis consultation and decision-making between equals.
NATO has also agreed a new multi-year assistance programme to help the Ukrainian armed forces transition from Soviet-era to NATO standards and strengthen Ukraine's security and defence sector to resist further Russian aggression. Ukraine is already closer to NATO that it has ever been. In Vilnius, Allied leaders reiterated that Ukraine's future is in NATO.


NATO's out of area operations prove that the Alliance is not defensive​

NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia to stop bloodshed and save lives. From 1992-1995, NATO conducted several military operations in Bosnia, including enforcing a no-fly-zone and providing air support for UN peacekeepers. These activities were mandated by the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a member. NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions in 1995 helped pave the way for the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia that had killed over 100,000 people. From 1996, NATO led multinational peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, which included troops from Russia. The European Union took over that mission in 2004.
NATO's operation in Kosovo in 1999 followed a year of intense international diplomatic efforts, which included Russia, to end the conflict. The UN Security Council repeatedly branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the growing number of refugees as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's mission helped to end large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians. KFOR, NATO's ongoing peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, has a UNSC mandate (UNSCR 1244) and is supported by both Belgrade and Pristina.
The NATO-led operation in Libya in 2011 was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs 1970 and 1973), neither of which was opposed by Russia. UNSCR 1973 authorised the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

Last edited:
A non-partisan research post - London
Additional Bonus:

Nations Undergo Rigorous Process to Join NATO

Minimum Requirements for NATO Membership

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

Vladimir Putin said in 2000 that he ‘cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world’.

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

In 2000 Putin told George Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO at that time, that he wanted Russia to join NATO but would not like to go through the usual application process.[32]

Prof. Yuriy DAVYDO

Russian president Vladimir Putin wants you to believe that NATO is responsible for his February 24 invasion of Ukraine—that rounds of NATO enlargement made Russia insecure, forcing Putin to lash out. This argument has two key flaws. First, NATO has been a variable and not a constant source of tension between Russia and the West. Moscow has in the past acknowledged Ukraine’s right to join NATO; the Kremlin’s complaints about the alliance spike in a clear pattern after democratic breakthroughs in the post-Soviet space. This highlights a second flaw: Since Putin fears democracy and the threat that it poses to his regime, and not expanded NATO membership, taking the latter off the table will not quell his insecurity. His declared goal of the invasion, the “denazification” of Ukraine, is a code for his real aim: antidemocratic regime change.
Last edited:
A non-partisan research post - London
Leaked Russian military files reveal Moscow rehearses tactical nuclear weapons response to Chinese invasion

Russia has rehearsed using tactical nuclearweapons at an early stage of conflict with a major world power, the Financial Times reported on Feb. 28, citing leaked military files that include trainingscenarios for an invasion by China.

Last edited:
A non-partisan research post - London
Putin faces £601m war plane blitz: Ukraine downs 10 Russian warplanes in 10 days including seven £39m bombers, two £34m jets and £260m spy plane in major blow to Moscow
  • Ukraine claims to have downed jets in the occupied east and a plane over Russia


A non-partisan research post - London

NATO: Russia’s war against Ukraine: Kremlin’s litany of lies​

A non-partisan research post - London
The Truth About Ukraine Starts to Leak Out

But claiming Russia was provoked into war still means you're a Russian stooge​

"The conspiracies about Ukraine are like all the rest - after a few years the conspiracy theorists are proven correct. First you are called a Russian stooge for suggesting NATO expansion may have provoked Russia to invade Ukraine, before the truth starts to slowly drip out. A few more years and The Guardian will be lecturing us on biolabs in Ukraine! . . ."

None of this should come as any surprise to anyone who follows this thread.
Subsequent to :

NATO: Russia’s war against Ukraine: Kremlin’s litany of lies

The Breach: Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum

In 1994, the three depository states of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
  1. Russia,
  2. United States,and the
  3. United Kingdom
extended positive and negative security assurances to Ukraine.
The depository states underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by signing the so-called “Budapest Memorandum.”

Russia’s breach of the Memorandum invites strong scrutiny of other security commitments and opens an enormous rhetorical opportunity for proliferators to lobby for a nuclear deterrent.

Using new archival records, this examination of Ukraine’s search for security guarantees in the early 1990s reveals that, ironically, the threat of border revisionism by Russia was the single gravest concern of Ukraine’s leadership when surrendering the nuclear arsenal.

Ukraine insisted that these security commitments be incorporated into a high-level document— preferably involving Russia. After consultations with Washington in December 1992, the US Ambassador in Kyiv Roman Popadiuk presented Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) with a draft of such a US-Russian statement.

The draft included:

  1. Positive and negative security assurances of NWS toward NNWS parties to the NPT
  2. Commitment to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and the inviolability of borders and abstain from economic coercion, in accordance with the CSCE Final Act, and
  3. Commitment not to use force or threat of force against territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine, in accordance with the UN Charter.
The Ukrainian negotiators signaled that reaffirming existing multilateral commitments did not amount to a sufficient guarantee of Ukraine’s security. Yet, Ambassador Popadiuk informed the MFA that the US was unlikely to undertake any stronger
commitments. Indeed, he proved correct and the wording of this early draft remained substantively unchanged in the Budapest Memorandum signed two years later.

Last edited: