That's the dilemma for me. I can understand why Russia took this action but do not condone the use of military might. Which is why I cannot support NATO either, given their recent history in places like Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Why the aggressive push to bring Ukraine into NATO, when they could join the EU only but not NATO. Russia may be acting somewhat childishly defensive for not wanting NATO on it's borders in the form of Ukraine, but that other arrangement has worked well for Finland and Sweden who also border Russia, so I wonder why that situation wasn't also adopted and acceptable for the EU/ NATO regarding Ukraine? That is all Russia was asking for as far as I can tell.

@puff I don’t think Putin cares so much about nato. He is empire building, trying to revise the Soviet Union. In many ways the US wants that to, everyone is happy when we have a common enemy.

And I do not condone the shit we pull either.

@puff The "push" to join NATO was a false flag, it takes a unanimous vote by all NATO members to admit another country, also no country already at war can join NATO. So Ukraine was ineligible to even apply. You fell for Russian propaganda.

NATO has been on its borders for years, another false flag.

@glennlab Do you recall Reds under the bed and the domino theory? What have we been witnessing the last 20 years? How do places like China and Russia view what has been happening?
It's a sad situation but Russia has seen many treaties discarded and word's broken since the USSR fell. They wanted stuff in writing, assurances. They talked of crossing red lines and this was totally ignored. We now know, Putin was not bluffing. A written assurance that Ukraine would not be invited to join NATO may well have avoided all this, not much to concede really. Because as you pointed out, probably unlikely to happen anyway.
My country, Australia, has nothing to do with the North Atlantic yet our PM is yapping like the attack poodle he is. Meanwhile yesterday in the Asia Pacific, our actual geographical area, Myanmar's military is attacking villages with overwhelming force, targeting civilians, and Australia? Not a peep. Asians not Caucasians after all.

I did giggle today watching a news chat show. Talking about the "peacekeeping" operation and how the population will react eg will they be welcomed? They then talked about insurgencies that may spring up if occupation continues and peacekeepers not popular. Then someone mentioned "like Iraq", they all went quite and the subject changed quickly. Actually did laugh out loud. Oops.

This is a big problem for us in the West. Any moral high ground we may have once held is now non-existent.

@puff It does nobody any good to to occupy the moral high ground, when all you do is cover it with dung…

@puff Playing "what about isms"does nothing to address the current problem. I was a war planner during the cold war, I am keenly aware of the bullshit that was in many of the treaties and what was not. The treaties that were ended, while I disagreed with ending them were widely violated by the Russians, Not putting something into writing before a treaty is signed means that it was never in the treaty or intended to be in the treaty. There is a huge difference between proposing something and actually having it agreed to.

Russia promised in writing to guarantee the borders of Ukraine in exchange for the nuclear weapons that Ukraine possessed. Russia signed the UN charter, when recognizes the sovereign borders and uninvited military intervention without the consent of the security council or the general assembly.

No one here has clean hands, so the only measure we can evaluate is whether the current invasion is either legal or justified. There is no moral high ground, all countries are down in the mud, the only real question is whether we will try to slog out of the mud together or get down in it and fight over the dirty boots.

To be clear, the red scare was the 1950s and was a way to justify the building of the nuclear umbrella. The domino theory was exactly that a theory that helped to justify the Vietnam war in the late 60 early 70s, I did not buy into either one, though I would have been a little young to remember the commie under every bed's beginning.

My history with the USSR/Russia goes back way beyond the last 20 years, with the Russian people you need to go back to the Czars and take everything into account. Russian history is something that everyone should be aware of to evaluate their actions.

If you have a problem with your own governments actions, speak out to them about it. If you think your government is racist, speak out about it.

@glennlab I recall the infantryman's motto: "To seize and hold ground, to seek out the enemy and kill or capture him".
There are basically only 2 reasons for war.

1. You want their shit, their resources ie "seize and hold ground"
2. You hate them and want them dead ie "to seek out the enemy and kill or capture him".

I think what we are seeing is #2 here. Putin is after people rather than resources in that he wants to keep certain people out of Ukraine.

PS I think #1 has been forgotten by the US largely when they achieved overwhelming air superiority, a flaw in recent conflicts. You can bomb the shit out of somewhere, but unless you have boots on the ground, it's not yours.

@puff You forgot the only valid reason to go to war, I was attacked and I will defend myself. I believe you have taken the reasons for unprovoked aggression and inserted them into war. Their is a big difference between self defense and invasion.

@glennlab Just a little aside, you say you were a war planner during the cold war. Do you mean in operations? I ask as I was intel; tracking the enemy, also during cold war 86-89.
My question is about the Russians seizing Chernobyl early on. I think it was seized to secure it from radicals who may have used it as leverage, threatening a dirty bomb. Do you agree with my assessment?

@glennlab lol yes there is a big difference to self defence and invasion.
Has not the rational for the US's war on terror been to protect the homeland ie defence? Biden even used that reasoning when withdrawing from Afghanistan, that they no longer posed a threat to the US mainland, that that capability had been nullified.
We are both dinosaur's and Orwellian double speak is becoming a thing. Mandates equate freedom and tolerance requires censorship. Perhaps the war definitions we are accustomed to have changed also. War is now peace and attack is defence.

@puff There are 15 other reactor units under Ukraine control, Chernobyl was the least defended area, and thus easy to penetrate. The entire exclusion area is dangerous for humans to be in for any length of time. Based on prevailing winds, it would not be a good terrorist site. The domed reactor provides some shelter from shelling and rocket attacks, since no one wants to release what is being stored there. Maximum time in zone will depend on the particular area the troops are stationed. I would worry if they stayed in the exclusion zone for more than 7-10 days as irreversible radiation poisoning could decimate the troops. Penning the Russian troops in the exclusion zone could be a very bad thing for the Russians.

@puff The rational for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq were because GWB wanted to go to war, since a wartime president gets political capitol. His biography stated tthat before he got elected president. He got caught flat footed on 9/11 since he and his people were preparing for a war with Russia and not a terrorist attack as he had been warned to expect. As far as the end of the afganistan war, Trump had already signed the surrender agreement and had pulled out of all the airfields, so it was a matter of giving a face saving statement.

@glennlab preparing for a war on Russia? Don't you mean Iraq or Iran?

@puff No their primary planning prior to the attack on 9/11 was Russia. Iraq and Iran were an afterthought. GWB was still stuck in daddy's world since all of his underlings had worked for GHWB first. That was the reason it took so long to respond to the attack. When Afghanistan offered to turn over ODB to the world court or any other third party country, GWB turned them down since he needed a war. The "but he tried to kill my daddy" reason on Iraq didn't surface until after we had invaded.

Based on military planning, a full force response could have been implemented in 30 days, not the 90 plus that GWB took.

@glennlab I'm a bit suss the Patriot Act was drafted and approved in record time for such a complex piece of legislation.

@puff It had been in the can for over 2 decades waiting for the proper time to release it. There would not have been enough time to print it, much less do the legislative work had it not been ready. There are plans that are laid out that never get used, but when the time is right, they get dusted off and implemented. The Patriot act was one of those.

@puff patriot act was a watershed moment in the decline of American values. Fuck it, and all who support it!

@Canndue totally agree