Fairly historic moment for Russia if true. Not since the Soviet Union have both been connected by land.
And please don't come back to me saying I support this, just because I posted it.
Sounds like you are aptly describing some of our politicians, say Paul Murphy or Richard Boyd Barrett.
Everytime I hear the latter speak I pity poor old Jeremy Irons when he has to meet him.
He's never come out and said it, because to do so would be coming out against a non-military bloc, but the underlying problem Putin has with "the West" is the EU and not Nato. He doesn't like that it's becoming more cohesive, he doesn't like that it's culturally powerful and influential, he doesn't like its economic heft. He likes almost nothing about it because it has successfully peeled former Eastern Bloc states away from the miserable petro-kingdom of his imagination and the "new Rome" of Moscow.
You really think EU will accept a country that has open borders with non EU countries?
With their own bodies, trying to stop the invasion.
Yeah while Russia slept after 1991, NATO managed to draw in most of the Eastern bloc.
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Albania
Croatia
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Impressive by NATO
Well, it'll take a decade at least before they join, otherwise the whole EU project will fall apart with open borders with Russia. Imagine the black market alone.
It's not going to happen. This is one of the issues I have with their leaders. They are setting unrealistic milestones.
This is the foreign minister today. He knows full well that's not going to happen yet he is giving this expectation to his people. Doesn't make much sense.
"How come you're so paranoid about our self-defence alliance that everyone can join except you?"
Can somebody explain something regarding nuclear warheads?
UK and France have over 500 between each other. What difference does it make that Russia has 6000? I’d of thought 500 nukes could probably finish off Russia quite comfortably, 6000 seems like excessive but not much more damaging then 500 if we are talking about an existential threat. Is 500 nukes going off in Russia going to leave much of it in tact? What’s the difference if you have feck all of a country left?
Given that, why is the EU seen as vulnerable to nuclear threat? If nuclear war starts, army size won’t count for much. Nobody wants to see escalation of nuclear war but I’m just wondering , asides from not having an army or much weapons, why the EU Is seen so weak regarding the nuclear threat.
The alliance those leaders led is still relevant. Imagining that the behaviour of The West is erased every time there's a new leader is a bit naive. In any case, I'm not making the case for the Russians, I'm relaying the stories they tell themselves. I'm also saying that they tell themselves that the alliance that has moved closer to their borders over the last 30 years is well able to make up a pretext for war based on little or no fact. The WMD is a recent example of exactly that process.
Did the factual basis of WMD matter in that invasion? No
Does the factual basis of the Russians invasion of Ukraine matter?
Well the last paragraph of that letter dated very well now, didn't it?
Aiming high. I think they'll end up being accepted into the EU. By aiming high, they may be pushing for slightly lesser realities. i.e "we want NATO air cover" Zelensky knows that isn't happening, but forces the west into a second best option.
Accepting them right now would be the acts of a saboteur. Open EU border with Russia.
War torn country needing billions and billions to rebuild.
Millions of Ukrainians fleeing to other EU countries.
EU country in a war with Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
I think they are keeping the Russian Soldiers in the column approaching Kyiv because if they didn't they desert.
It isn't quite a sitting target but a slow moving target and not sensible from a tactical perspective.
You mean we shouldn't pay attention to those darned EU westerners. Listen to mother Russia instead. Much better!
Yeah ok eitherway looks like the application is in and is under consideration
Well, they tell the story about how The West guaranteed Gorbachev thst Nato wouldn't expand East at all. Then, after they expanded east, they told the Russians they were fools to accept The West's word that they wouldn't expand nato eastwards. (Supposedly the US records show that "we" did make them that promise).
From their point of view, the Nato expansion is a serious issue. We dismiss that concern, partly because it contradicts our narrative in which we're the hero and Russia is the bad guy.
UN seeking urgent aid for Ukraine. Hope we see them sending it in soon.
Will be dangerous, fully expect (UN member) Russia to label them as "terrorists/Nazis/etc" and start attacking them
I'm aware of the Russian stance, and it has no basis in objective reality. It's a deeply held institutional paranoia within the Kremlin about the 'intentions of the West' that has a long tradition within Russian political thought. It has and had no basis in the late 20th century or early 21st century.
The only thing Nato threatened and continued to threaten was to stymie an unstable Russia's ability to coerce, bully and politically intimidate neighbouring states.
Who here would put their hand up now and say Poland / Estonia / Bulgaria / Latvia made a mistake by joining Nato? They didn't, they preserved their states and democracies from a paranoid crpto-fascist creep that would 100% be militarily and politically bullying them if they hadn't joined.
We on a windy rock on the Atlantic far away from Russia can maybe afford to do a Hyde Park speakers corner hand-wringing about Nato - Central and Eastern European states don't have that quaint luxury.
Russian nuclear doctrine is different to most countries. Most countries with nuclear weapons have tactical warheads, designed to destroy vast areas, thereby being a credible deterrent. Russia also has strategic nuclear warheads that they can use to target smaller objectives like military installations and infrastructure.
The number of nukes doesn't mean much. Once one is sent off, all hell breaks loose. We're all doomed then.
Nuclear plants could themselves be targeted sending radiation levels throughout Europe through the roof.
The ex Yugoslav countries were never part of the Eastern Bloc
Ever think the reason they joined NATO was because they were afraid of a time like this where the Russian bear would want to reconquer them and put in another puppet regime to last another 40 odd years of repression.
Some of these states didn't exist pre 1939, but a fair few did and remembered first being conquered and subjugated by Germany and then supposedly liberated and subjugated by USSR.
In the case of the Baltics and Eastern Poland they got the privledge of being first conquered by USSR and then liberated by Germany.
He's nothing more than a Putin bootlicker, f-him. If they are stupid enough to start a shooting war with anyone else the Russian invasion forces in Ukraine would be obliterated. The amount of modern air assets that could be brought to bear on the Russian ground forces in the Ukraine would be eye watering and they have been tracking every piece of hardware since they crossed the border last Thursday morning.
Another "Russia is great" merchant. He left out the "Russia is great at bombing hospitals and civilians".
I suppose if it comes to it, we'd try to destroy their nuclear weapons and they'd try to destroy ours. Preferably they'd want to destroy them before they launch. So having loads of weapons and loads of launch sites probably increases your chances of actually launching more of them?
You could try that against other countries but Russia would detect that.
Maybe you could declare part of Western Ukraine \ Lviv a safe haven city, but it would mean say not "NATO" but 'EU\Polish\Czech' troops going in on the ground like UN blue helmets.
After all, Putin hasn't declared war on Ukraine, he says he is there to remove the Kiev government and protect ethnic Russians in the east... so this is just to prevent a humanitarian refugee crisis.
But even then, the risk of it escalating is too much.
hashtag both sides. I mean are they still going with that narrative, anything on RT now seems to be about Ukranian internal issues and less about NATO. The basic premise doesn't make sense though. Russia was annoyed at NATO expansion so they want it to expand even more? If NATO expansion led to inevitable war then you would expect some manner of actually hurting NATO would be logical instead of running the world's biggest advertising campaign for them.
Many in the west protested and argued against the Iraq invasion. What % went to prison vs those protesting the war in Russia? I am not saying the west is perfect and there is much I would change if I could. Especially with regard to US foreign policy. However there is a massive, massive difference in scale in the problems in Russia and in the west. The west isn't the hero but there is suddenly a strong overlap between stopping Putin from invading more countries and their own interests.
You don't need a degree in international relations to have an opinion. Otherwise no one would be able to comment on pretty much anything ever. People should be open to new ideas and other opinions though. Especially when presented with facts when they are not experts on a subject (this is directed at anyone in anything, not you in particular).
Russia's advantage lies in being a massive land mass and having seemingly good air defences. I mean I'm hoping their nukes run out of fuel on the way to Europe.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a2083440578c8f8372334e3f622c0cf5.svg)
