Those countries are sovereign but they are only sovereign to the point where due regard has to be given to Russia in their decision making. Not because they want to but because they have to. It's the geopolitical reality of the whole region.
But how far does this go? Who makes the rules?
Supoosing Russia decided countries on its western border should not be allowed to generate electricity because they would use it to manufacture weapons, would that be fair enough?
The invasion of Ukraine is a direct consequence of Putin being a psychotic despot.
You're also missing the large flaw in the piece of bizarre logic about borders and NATO.
By Russia invading and occupying countries which were NOT in NATO such as Ukraine the gshite Putin moves Russias border up to existing countries already in NATO!
Does he expect those countries to delist from NATO, so he won't have NATO up against new Russia's borders?
Where exactly does that particular circle jerk end for Putin?
This rabbit hole you are digging in an attempt to justify a crazy initial position leads to a logical conclusion that, given there are people in the world who think like you and the Orc leadership, the only safe sane response is nuclear proliferation, not attempts to rein it in.
Had Ukraine not been comprehensively tricked and deceived by the UK and US into giving up it's nuclear weapons, this war would never have occurred and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I would like to see the US quietly supply Ukraine with 8 nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles. It's the only viable answer I see to the conundrum of what is an appropriate response if Russia has a hissy fit and nukes Kyiv. This takes any response out of the hands of the US or NATO and gives it to Ukraine, localising the issue instead of the current situation of potential global escalation.
After the transfer and commissioning, you allow for a rumour that Ukraine might now have a the means to respond to WMD aggression in kind. It sure worked wonders for Israel.
This situation came about because one side no longer had nuclear weapons. This is a blunt and unassailable truth.
It's also the only answer to crazy loons who think in terms of geopolitics - which is an academic title for war mongering - and of 'buffer states' as being an actual legitimate thing. When your neighbour has nuclear weapons you no longer have the luxury of thinking in terms of buffers and have to find a way to coexist, because it deprives you of thinking in terms of aggression and territorial or influence expansion.
Taiwan and Australia also need nukes, but that's another story.
What ever people think about her personally or politically, at 82 years of age she is some lady.
The UK Sky Sabre is specced with the capability of hypersonic missile interception.
Watch as the Russians do **** all to Kiev while she is there, unlike while the UN lad was there.
They know full well the Americans would love for them to pull that ****.
Well not exactly, the Americans like the Brits, don't announce their arrivals.
Security 101.
I'm sure if they really wanted to they could launch a missile at Kiev to make a point.
I'm seeing twitter reports of a strike yesterday near Izium.
It is being reported that many senior officers have died and that Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, of the infamous Putin long table, has been seriously injured. If true this is a big blow to their plans.
He'd only just arrived too, and he's on his way home already.
Putin will not be pleased.
Ya look maybe you can reread my original post. I wasn’t and didn’t make an argument for Russia needing a “buffer zone” I’m merely stated the historical reasoning for them wanting one.
Save your knees a be less jerky.
It's not a threat to Russia, but Russia seems to have this warped view that NATO is holding Russia back from its 'rightful dominion', i.e. eastern Europe. Russia has never stopped to consider that maybe the reason that eastern Europe fell away from Russia's influence is because Russia isn't as attractive an economic, defensive and cultural partner as the West. Russia could take steps to improve itself, but it doesn't seem to want to do that. The geopolitical equivalent of an angry and ugly guy with no personality, but still bitterly wonders why he's not so popular and his best relationships are with people as toxic as he is.
Kind of scary if true. This + UK saying Putin will announce mobilisation on 9th May would indicate they are plan to go to war officially.
It’s in NATOs/ American interest to prolong the war and bleed Russia White so then focus on China.
Foreign policy has nothing to do with morales it’s just about power.
Welcome to Ukraine.
They could do that at any stage.
The point though is Pelosi and Schiff would be long gone.
Isn't Gerasimov the new supreme commander guy that was sent in to take over the running of the war? That would be an incredible propaganda coup for the Ukrainians if true - it would be like taking Monty or Eisenhower out of action during WW2.
It was stated in that interview that it his personal opinion that that is what Vlad was gonna do and there was no intelligence to back that up.
Oddly enough, I have the feeling that an announcement like that would almost be a declaration of failure if anything. If everything has been going to plan, why do they need to roll out the reserves.
One would think Putin probably isn't too put out by this considering he sent him to the front line.
Has Ukr already accepted that it can never join NATO? I think that it was put on the table at the various meetings in Turkey between both sides BUT those meetings came to nothing substantial. So I think , from the UKr perspective that proposal is now off the table. For Ch—act’s sake ‘ UKr had not even started to apply and it wasINVADED. So RU has given it 100% proof as to why it should join NATO às soon S possible. What can RU do about it anyway - it starting from a very low base , the army having been very deflected, the iron curtain being in place, etc, etc,etc, and if Putin starts off again UKr will be supplied with even more arms, etc.
Not put out maybe..
Or an alternative view is that Putin's fall guy is now gone.
So who will take the blame ahead of May 9th? Because someone will have to since Putin can't be seen to be at fault.
That's if these reports are true of course.
This is brilliant if true.
Hopefully Putin will have his own Wolf's Lair soon enough
What a stupid statement.
Nato/USA are seeking to prevent wars, not cause them.
Your view that they want to "bleed" Russia and then start on China is nothing short of a completely distorted view of reality.
It's in Russia's interest to subjugate Ukraine, apparently, as well. If foreign policy has nothing to do with morals, it may only be the Ukrainian people themselves who could be said to be acting sincerely. What have they said in that sincerity? They have said they want to defend their land and have asked for weapons with which to do that. If US foreign policy is such that the Ukrainians get those weapons, I'm not really complaining.
Pelosi looks like she is bricking it!
An interesting development is that 50 flights from Moscow airports were abruptly cancelled yesterday. Apparently, it's connected to the effects of sanctions and planes being considered unsafe or not having the authorisation to fly
I'd reckon , injuries aside - he's fookiing delighted to be going home.
Russia started the war but there is no doubt that the west are taking advantage of Russian military weakness. This is a unique opportunity to degrade the Russian military so they will not be a threat again for decades. That is the main reason that the west are pumping mountains of weapons into Ukraine.
China are also an enemy of the west, there is no doubt about that. Both sides know that a war could be catastrophic for both, so they are both cautious.
That's Aleksandr Dvornikov you're thinking of.
Oh right, I was wondering who the new head guy was.
About a week into the latest grand offensive that was supposed to destroy Ukraine in matter of days.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
