Ukraine invasion

[Atilla]

As for Ukraine's provocation, they didn't have nuclear missiles, they had previously given up the ones they had. They had said they are a non-nuclear state. They were not in NATO (yet) anyway. They didn't attack Russia to provoke this war. Not much provocation at all in fact when looked at.

You say they were not in NATO (yet) anyway. Not much provocation at all in fact when looked at.


Would it be a fair summarisation to assert that Russia, "ideally in your opinion" have waited for Ukraine to join NATO and then it be justified in attacking then?

Or

Russia should simply accept Ukraine joining NATO and hosting nuclear weapons and only respond if Ukraine sets off a pre-emptive attack, giving Russia a few seconds to detect a launch before it is nuked out of existence?

 

[RolloTape2025]

You say they were not in NATO (yet) anyway. Not much provocation at all in fact when looked at.


Would it be a fair summarisation to assert that Russia, "ideally in your opinion" have waited for Ukraine to join NATO and then it be justified in attacking then?

Or

Russia should simply accept Ukraine joining NATO and hosting nuclear weapons and only respond if Ukraine sets off a pre-emptive attack, giving Russia a few seconds to detect a launch before it is nuked out of existence?

They could diplomatically make sure that Ukraine would not host any nuclear weapons if it joined NATO. That would not be hard to agree in my opinion. As stated, there are other Russian bordering countries in NATO. There is no problem with these countries right now or in recent years. Russia did not decide to invade Finland or any of the others I mentioned.

In a general sense, a country has a right to defend their borders, but does not have the right to preclude other countries outside those borders from making trade deals, alliances, treaties etc. with other countries. They can exert influence diplomatically, but if they do so by force then that is aggressive action and goes beyond self-defence.

 

[timsk]

But it is the same argument that Israel would make. They would say Hamas provoked it by killing 1200 people on October 7th. Yet that was one day, and 1200 people. That is a horrific day. But now over a year of attacks and bombs and probably around 10-20,000 deaths of children. That's only the children number. Not sure that even includes all the victims of starvation, lack of proper healthcare etc. Israel has committed what I said was a horrific day, repeatedly for many days over the past year. The provocation argument doesn't hold up.

I agree with you re. Israel: there is no justification for their actions as they're clearly committing genocide. Russia aren't doing anything of the sort. They're fighting (what was) one of the best armies in the world - not deliberately killing civilians. (Yes, I accept that, tragically, civilians will be killed but, unlike Israel, that's not Russia's intent.) Indeed, one of the reasons for Russia's invasion was Zelensky's ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbas region - resulting in the death of of 14,000+ Russian civilians since the 2014 Maidan coup. So, there's no comparison to be made between Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Chalk and cheese. What is a fair comparison IMO is what Netanyahu/Israel is doing in Gaza and what Zelensky/Ukraine is doing in the Donbas - that is clearly comparable.

There is an almighty difference between what one side might see as provocation, and invading and destroying another country.

As for Ukraine's provocation, they didn't have nuclear missiles, they had previously given up the ones they had. They had said they are a non-nuclear state. They were not in NATO (yet) anyway. They didn't attack Russia to provoke this war. Not much provocation at all in fact when looked at.

There's looking at history through rose coloured spec's and then there's this, lol! ;-)
It's not Ukrainian nukes that Russia's worried about - it's U.S. nukes! And while Ukraine aren't yet in NATO, do you really expect Russia to sit back and wait before they officially join before taking action? By then it'll be too late - surely you can see that?

As for existential threat... that seems silly. There are several NATO countries that currently border Russia and have done for many years. Do you think it is ok for Russia to also invade Finland now? Then Estonia. Then Latvia. Norway maybe has a tiny border with Russia, them too? Turkey and Poland are pretty close as well, so you will be happy to see them invaded all because of a 'provocation' from NATO and an existential threat, despite none of those countries attacking Russia even though some of them were members of NATO for many years.

No, of course I don't think it's okay for Russia to invade those countries or anyone else for that matter: I've made my position on this matter crystal clear. Ukraine is different from the countries you mention because they're a de facto 51st U.S. state and they've been funded, armed and equipped to the hilt over the past decade by the U.S. for the express purpose of fighting Russia. The idea that Putin has nothing to fear from NATO or the U.S. is blatant western propaganda and it saddens me to my core just how readily people fall for such obvious BS.

Aside from all of that, Russia has great military strength and strong allies, and not much existential threat from any country right now. In fact invading Ukraine would actually promote more countries like Finland to want to join NATO.

Whether or not other countries like Finland join NATO makes zero difference to what Russia is doing now. Besides, NATO is toast. It's a relic from the cold war that only exists to feed the military industrial complex, make $billions and help to maintain U.S. hegemony. In terms of defending the west - it's not fit for purpose. Russia, pretty much single handedly, has taken on the might of the U.S. and the west and won the war hands down. And there's sweet FA that NATO and the west can do about it. The sooner NATO is gone the safer we'll all be.
Tim.

 

[RolloTape2025]

There's looking at history through rose coloured spec's and then there's this, lol! ;-)
It's not Ukrainian nukes that Russia's worried about - it's U.S. nukes! And while Ukraine aren't yet in NATO, do you really expect Russia to sit back and wait before they officially join before taking action? By then it'll be too late - surely you can see that?

But that's exactly my point. If Russia actually believes what you say, then they should have invaded Finland before they joined. So you would 'understand' that invasion too. You might not like it, but you would say that's understandable. And the countries I mentioned that border Russia, they should have invaded all of those too before they joined NATO. Because otherwise it would be too late. That seems a crazy view to me. You are justifying/understanding a lot of countries be invaded and destroyed simply because one powerful country doesn't like something they are doing.

 

[timsk]

But that's exactly my point. If Russia actually believes what you say, then they should have invaded Finland before they joined. So you would 'understand' that invasion too. You might not like it, but you would say that's understandable. And the countries I mentioned that border Russia, they should have invaded all of those too before they joined NATO. Because otherwise it would be too late. That seems a crazy view to me. You are justifying/understanding a lot of countries be invaded and destroyed simply because one powerful country doesn't like something they are doing.

RT,
I fear you've not taken on board my central point, allow me to clarify. . .
None - not one - of the countries who share a border with Russia and are members of NATO are a de facto 51st U.S. state that has been funded, armed, equipped and trained to produce one of the finest armies in the world with the express purpose of fighting Russia. That's why Russia has everything to fear from Ukraine and nothing at all to fear from Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Norway etc. You may not agree with this point - and that's fine - but please tell me that you understand it because, rightly or wrongly, that's what Putin and Russia believes. It doesn't matter what you or I think - all that matters is what they think. And that's what almost everyone in the west is conveniently either ignoring completely or dismissing out of hand. Big mistake. Massive. Huge.
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

But that's exactly my point. If Russia actually believes what you say, then they should have invaded Finland before they joined. So you would 'understand' that invasion too. You might not like it, but you would say that's understandable. And the countries I mentioned that border Russia, they should have invaded all of those too before they joined NATO. Because otherwise it would be too late. That seems a crazy view to me. You are justifying/understanding a lot of countries be invaded and destroyed simply because one powerful country doesn't like something they are doing.

There is intel that a build up of Russian military and forces redirected to the Finish borders.

Also, Finland has a policy against Nuclear weapons. Below is from google.


No, Finland does not host nuclear weapons, and there are no plans for it to do so. Finland is a non-nuclear weapons state and is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

While some discussions have emerged regarding the possibility of nuclear weapons being transported through Finnish territory, the current Finnish legislation forbids the storage, transport, manufacture, possession, and detonation of nuclear charges within the country. Finland's current approach is to rely on NATO's nuclear deterrence capabilities.

The new president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, has expressed that Finland should have a "real nuclear deterrent" and that the country can rely on NATO's three-pronged deterrence. However, this does not mean that Finland is looking to host nuclear weapons, but rather that it is seeking to strengthen its NATO commitment.

In addition to Finland's commitment to the NPT, the country also has a strong commitment to nuclear safety and security. Finland has a nuclear energy industry, and the country's nuclear energy plants are subject to strict safety regulations.


Ukraine on the other hand as Tim points out has been doped up with US money aid and help as well as 25 bio-labs conducting illegal genetic gain-of-function research with viruses that is illegal in the US. You know the same research as the one in Wuhan lab that the US funded with $5m.

Zelensky was prepared for this role. If you join up the dots... You should begin to question the WHY?

 

[timsk]

Zelensky was prepared for this role. If you join up the dots... You should begin to question the WHY?

Hopefully, anyone who's been following this thread will know the answer to the why. Spoiler alert; here it is:
💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲
And that's how you become the richest comedian in the world. Be in no doubt, Zelensky did not acquire his immense wealth by doing this . . .

 

[Phylo]

Hi RT,

When you've been banging your head against a brick wall since at least 2008 when NATO gave the green light to Ukraine's membership and repeated ad nauseam that NATO expansion to Russia's borders is unacceptable, then what - exactly - is Putin/Russia supposed to do? To repeat, I do not condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but no one (be it on this thread or anywhere else) has outlined an alternative avenue that Putin has not already explored to prevent nukes being placed on Russia's border.
Tim.

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------
The eye sees all but itself; the mind knows all but its own limits

• If Ukraine had remained part of the Russian Federation in 1991, Vladimir Putin would not have faced the issue of negotiating Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament as an independent state. Instead, the nuclear arsenal on Ukrainian territory would have been under direct Russian control, and there would have been no need for the kind of trilateral negotiations or security assurances that occurred in reality128.
• Given Putin’s well-documented emphasis on Russia’s nuclear deterrent as a tool for asserting Russian power and pressuring the West—demonstrated by his nuclear rhetoric and deployment decisions during the Ukraine conflict—he would almost certainly have opposed any move to fully disarm the nuclear forces stationed in Ukraine if they were part of the Russian Federation7. It is highly likely he would have insisted on retaining a significant nuclear presence in the region, both as a strategic buffer and as leverage against NATO, especially given the proximity to NATO’s eastern borders.
• In summary, if Ukraine had been part of Russia, Putin would not have agreed to full nuclear disarmament of the territory. Instead, he would likely have maintained and possibly even emphasized the strategic value of these nuclear assets on NATO’s doorstep, using them as a core element of Russia’s security and foreign policy posture79.

A gentle reminder
(just my two cents — I think I wasted too much time in those halls of learning becoming a professional engineer. Had I simply laid tiles for a living, I would probably be wiser than the wisest, and the greatest of pontificators 😇 )

 

[Phylo]

A non-partisan research post - London
----------------------------------------------------

Bad Week For Russia's Air Force​

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Trump-Musk Big Bro bust-up: Ignore the noise, focus on the signal​

Crushing Hit To Ukraine’s Economy: EU Pulls the Plug On Ukraine’s Trade Perks

The 2014 Association Agreement rules are back in play, and the EU is allowing Ukraine’s special trade access to expire, delivering a significant blow to the Ukrainian economy, according to German media reports.

sputnikglobe.com

Ukraine’s most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?​

Leaked Ukrainian peace terms differ from version presented to Moscow​

Top Russian lawmaker slams German chancellor’s remarks supporting Kiev regime​

Growing Air Losses: Russia Lost Su-35 After Downing Ukrainian MiG-29

Both Russian and Ukrainian forces report the downing of advanced fighter jets in separate incidents, underscoring the high-risk nature of...

southfront.press

Zelensky gave Putin ‘reason to bomb the hell out of’ Ukraine – Trump​

Kiev sends the living to die, but won’t accept its dead​

Why Ukrainian Regime Doesn't Want to Accept Dead Soldiers and Wounded POWs

Ukraine has disrupted prisoner exchange and handover of 6,000 Ukrainian fallen soldiers' bodies. What's the reason?

sputnikglobe.com

Military Situation In Ukraine On July 7, 2024 (Map Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Kharkiv region; Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Sumy region; Russian strikes destroyed targets...

southfront.press

 

[Phylo]

George Galloway – my favourite comedic politician 😍

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Musk deletes Trump-Epstein post​

Thousands rally in London demanding ‘Welfare Not Warfare’ (VIDEOS)​

Russians find new biggest enemy to replace US – survey​

Dead Bodies of Ukrainian Soldiers Left 'In Limbo' Because of Zelensky's Greed

Ukraine’s refusal to keep its part of an agreed exchange with Russia and accept the bodies of slain Ukrainian soldiers stems from Kiev’s reluctance to pay sizeable compensation to the families of these dead soldiers, Dr. George Szamuely, senior research fellow at the Global Policy Institute...

sputnikglobe.com

Russia accuses Ukraine of self-genocide in feud over troop remains​

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

The return of 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers will cost the Ukrainian budget an additional $2.175 billion, RT military correspondent Igor Zhdanov said.

sputnikglobe.com

Russia publishes names of fallen Ukrainian soldiers disowned by Kiev​

Foreign Journalists Visit Russia's Bryansk Region, Inspect Bodies of Ukrainian Soldiers

Foreign reporters arrived in Russia’s Bryansk region to examine refrigerated containers holding the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers, according to a Sputnik's correspondent.

sputnikglobe.com

Mission: Regrettable – Ukraine’s drone strike blows up in its face​

Military Situation In Ukraine On June 8, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian forces advanced near Popov Yar;Russian forces advanced between Malinovka and Elizavetovka;Russian forces advanced in Yablonevka;Russian forces advanced north of Alexandropol;Fighting is ongoing near Poltavka;

southfront.press

 

[timsk]

 

[Atilla]

Yes exactly. Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, played a significant role in shaping US foreign policy, particularly during the height of the Cold War. He was a major proponent of US involvement in the Vietnam War and is known for his use of systems analysis in public policy.

The policy approach is widely known in international diplomatic circles. Joe public knows little.

1. Pick a candidate in any countries election process that is going to serve the US national interest
2. Engage with it and provide all the assistance, he/she needs to get elected
- They are duely told that if they do not accept the offer, this offer will be made to another competitor or even their opponent
3. If they decline the offer then their rival is offered the help and they are undermined for declining the US offer because of their own national interest not to be a US puppet

These offers can entail, money, intelligence, dirt on opponents and even assassinations if necessary. US has a very long history of interfering in Latin America to oppose people's will.

That's what the Vietnam war was about.

US constantly has been engaged in interfering and derailing other countries political democratic processes freely as they like since the 1960s.

There also isn't a democratic process in the US. To run for president one literally needs at least $100m just to enter the race. That means corporations and very rich individual donations have to come from vested interests. They call it democracy. It's corporations that run America.


Ukraine is one of those countries as said before Zelensky is simply a tool for US National Interest and foreign policy. Zelensky was prepped up and served specifically for this purpose. His TV show playing a president wasn't an accident but all managed and financed by deep pockets. His not remotely funny imho. Richest comedian in the world with properties and money all over the place over a $bn dollars.

US has no interest in the Ukrainian people. Their senators have said the same. This is a good war because no US marines are dying. Only Russians, Ukrainians and few other nationals.