| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

[william]

But... Russia had already invaded Crimea and started this conflict in 2014? Therefore the claim that the US & Ukraine provoked this war in 2021 has little ground to stand on.

I think blaming your own past President for a war unleashed by Russia only plays into Putin's hand. Unfortunately, the post shared above is pretty much exactly what the Kremlin has been pushing for the past 4 years.

The Western “Guarantees” to Mikhail Gorbachev and NATO Expansion: What Was Promised, What Was Implemented, and What Was Broken

The Western “Guarantees” to Gorbachev and NATO Expansion

Explore the debate over the West’s 1990 assurances to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward toward Russia’s borders—and how NATO’s subsequent enlargement has fueled strategic mistrust and geopolitical tension.

www.geopolitika.it

Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991.

www.historynewsnetwork.org

There is no doubt in my mind that western powers (mainly the US) took advantage of the collapse of the USSR to expand east and Russia is and was very paranoid about that.

 

[GBS61]

There is no doubt in my mind that western powers (mainly the US) took advantage of the collapse of the USSR to expand east and Russia is and was very paranoid about that.

These were verbal assurances—they are worth nothing, especially since none of those leaders were still in power:

NATO expansion dates:
• 1999: Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
• 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
• 2009: Albania and Croatia.
• 2017: Montenegro.
• 2020: North Macedonia.
• 2023: Finland (April 4, 2023).
• 2024: Sweden (March 7, 2024).

By the time of Finland and Sweden’s accession, Russia had already invaded Ukraine.

 

[Yingyang]

These were verbal assurances—they are worth nothing, especially since none of those leaders were still in power:

NATO expansion dates:
• 1999: Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
• 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
• 2009: Albania and Croatia.
• 2017: Montenegro.
• 2020: North Macedonia.
• 2023: Finland (April 4, 2023).
• 2024: Sweden (March 7, 2024).

By the time of Finland and Sweden’s accession, Russia had already invaded Ukraine.

Thankyou Putin

 

[Publius]

But... Russia had already invaded Crimea and started this conflict in 2014? Therefore the claim that the US & Ukraine provoked this war in 2021 has little ground to stand on.

I think blaming your own past President for a war unleashed by Russia only plays into Putin's hand. Unfortunately, the post shared above is pretty much exactly what the Kremlin has been pushing for the past 4 years.

So what exactly should the US be doing at this point in time irrespective of past foreign policy actions or lack of them.

Should we Continue as we have for four years believing that it will eventually produce a different result. Or should we be looking at ways to escalate and impose more pressure economically and or kinetic.
I hear everyone saying trump’s approach is wrong. And to some degree I agree.
Just what exactly should NATO be doing to push back sufficiently on Russia.

 

[GBS61]

Just what exactly should NATO be doing to push back sufficiently on Russia.

The USA needs to stop supporting Russia; as far as I am aware, they are still part of NATO. NATO cannot take any action without the agreement of all 32 members—or, alternatively, the USA could take the drastic step of leaving NATO.

The USA is very harmful to NATO

 

[Sentry]

Should we Continue as we have for four years believing that it will eventually produce a different result. Or should we be looking at ways to escalate and impose more pressure economically and or kinetic.

The latter. What's happening right now isn't enough, but there's no reason to choose an arguably worse approach that alleviates kinetic & economic pressure on Russia. I'm all for trying out something new but I'd rather have a strategy that does something rather than nothing. A half full glass is better than an empty one.

 

[GBS61]

Or should we be looking at ways to escalate and impose more pressure economically and or kinetic.

Currently, the USA is doing the exact opposite.

 

[Publius]

The USA needs to stop supporting Russia; as far as I am aware, they are still part of NATO. NATO cannot take any action without the agreement of all 32 members—or, alternatively, the USA could take the drastic step of leaving NATO.

The USA is very harmful to NATO

AS FAR AS I KNOW NATO has not agreed or adopted a member agreement regarding Ukraine.
Is the NATO treaty organization providing weapons and aid to Ukraine, or individual members.
Has NATO voted on or came to any consensus amongst the members of what is acceptable.
Has the treaty organization had an article 5 request over Ukraine.
The 2022 article four request by eastern members was for consultations to reinforce and strengthen natos eastern boarder with Russian. Not an organizational policy statement regarding Ukraine.
As far as the big three deciding that’s a hard no, not a definitive determination.
Witkoffs recently meeting again called for meetings between Ukraine Russia and the US. That is the only negotiated path forward.
If NATO as an organization finds that as a whole they have a vested interest in the outcome. Then they might make that clear.

The US could withdraw from all negotiations regarding Ukraine. Continue to send the minimal amount of arms and aid and let those in Europe who seem so vested in defeating Putin and regaining all of Ukraine pick up the slack and responsibility

 

[GBS61]

Witkoffs recently meeting again called for meetings between Ukraine Russia and the US. That is the only negotiated path forward.

Moscow has rejected peace proposals delivered by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff in St. Petersburg, deeming the plan formulated in Oslo to be lacking any substantial progress. Specifically, the Kremlin opposes a freeze along the front line and continues to demand a full withdrawal of the Ukrainian army from the Donetsk region. For further details, visit bluewin.ch.

 

[Publius]

The latter. What's happening right now isn't enough, but there's no reason to choose an arguably worse approach that alleviates kinetic & economic pressure on Russia. I'm all for trying out something new but I'd rather have a strategy that does something rather than nothing. A half full glass is better than an empty one.

Ok I agree 100%, what might that look like and who is going to start sending more arms, who is going to close off the remaining loop holes for Russian oil and gas. Who’s going to step up SIGNET flights and satellite data facilitating data for Ukraine to launch even more destructive attacks inside Russia. Russias striking civilian targets, the logical progression is Ukraine does the same.

Is India turkey Europe china and yes the US ready to impose a complete embargo of Russian goods.
These are ALL factors that directly contribute to the success or failure of a war. Everything else is just talk.

Logically as one member of this group of nations. If everyone is not committed to doing what’s necessary to prevail why shouldn’t the US try to deescalte.

I find it incredibly ironic that we have multiple nuclear powers in a direct conflict via a proxy over a nation and region historically apart of all the major parties.
And we’re ridiculing the one leader who is trying to deescalate the war.

 

[Publius]

Currently, the USA is doing the exact opposite.

Well yeah that’s obvious, so what! Who in NATO is or can send more advanced weapons to Ukraine on a larger scale. Who’s going to get directly involved.

 

[GBS61]

Well yeah that’s obvious, so what! Who in NATO is or can send more advanced weapons to Ukraine on a larger scale. Who’s going to get directly involved.

Germany: The second-largest overall supplier of arms (accounting for approximately 12% of major deliveries), providing Leopard tanks, Iris-T systems, and armored vehicles.
• United Kingdom and France: Key European players providing deep-strike weaponry and cruise missiles (Storm Shadow / SCALP).
• Poland: A major logistical and military actor (accounting for approximately 11% of the imports received by Kyiv), serving as a vital hub on the eastern flank.

However, the USA has thrown a wrench in the works by lifting certain sanctions against Russia.

 

[Publius]

Germany: The second-largest overall supplier of arms (accounting for approximately 12% of major deliveries), providing Leopard tanks, Iris-T systems, and armored vehicles.
• United Kingdom and France: Key European players providing deep-strike weaponry and cruise missiles (Storm Shadow / SCALP).
• Poland: A major logistical and military actor (accounting for approximately 11% of the imports received by Kyiv), serving as a vital hub on the eastern flank.

However, the USA has thrown a wrench in the works by lifting certain sanctions against Russia.

OMG what a betrayal!!!
Oh wait Europe IS STILL importing record levels of LNG. A record 17% increase in Russian LNG imports to Europe between march and may of 2026.
So spare me the faux outrage over sanctions on refined diesel.

Europe still can't kick its Russian gas habit

Europe is importing record volumes of LNG ahead of the 2027 ban while a Danish shipyard continues to service the tanker fleet linking Europe to Rus...

www.theparliamentmagazine.eu

 

[Publius]

OMG what a betrayal!!!
Oh wait Europe IS STILL importing record levels of LNG. A record 17% increase in Russian LNG imports to Europe between march and may of 2026.
So spare me the faux outrage over sanctions on refined diesel.

Europe still can't kick its Russian gas habit

Europe is importing record volumes of LNG ahead of the 2027 ban while a Danish shipyard continues to service the tanker fleet linking Europe to Rus...

www.theparliamentmagazine.eu

I don’t mean to be disrespectful and it is an issue I get animated about. So for that I apologize. But it is an issue that can’t be ignored. We speak of Russia as a threat that must be resisted at all cost. Yet the nations directly involved are all still allowing for trade.
In 2024 2000 tons of rubber was exported to Russia from the EU.
The US is still importing uranium from Russian sources despite a ban enacted in 2024.
Food and medicines are still exported from western nations to Russia.

Russia keeps getting Western goods despite EU sanctions

Western goods keep reaching Russia via intermediary networks despite 20 EU sanctions packages, and enforcement gaps remain

insightnews.media

I’m sorry but still being engaged in trade of resources while simultaneously being engaged in war with a totalitarian and an imperialist west is not consistent.
We’re going into debt and thousands are dying and the powers that be make exceptions on resources and profits just so the fighting can continue.

 

[RiffRaff]

Sooooo...
NATO expanding its borders towards Russia is casis belli for Russia to start a war and invade Ukraine, which - if completely successful - would give Russia a much larger border with NATO countries than what it has now? Not to mention the European countries that have been added to NATO specifically because of Russia invading Ukraine?

I don't think you thought that cunning plan all the way through. For that matter, I don't think many people have thought their cunning plans all the way through lately.

 

[RiffRaff]

We’re going into debt and thousands are dying and the powers that be make exceptions on resources and profits just so the fighting can continue.

Yep. This has been happening in one way or another for hundreds of years. You think the Crusades were really about Christianity versus Islam? (Spoiler Alert: They weren't.)

 

[teekay99]

NATO expanding its borders towards Russia is casis belli for Russia to start a war and invade Ukraine, which - if completely successful - would give Russia a much larger border with NATO countries than what it has now? Not to mention the European countries that have been added to NATO specifically because of Russia invading Ukraine?

If Ukraine were to join NATO, that would be an example of NATO clearly expanding its borders towards Russia. Thus, If one of Russia's goals is to keep NATO out of Ukraine, a Russian invasion accomplishes that, even if Russia cannot take over the entire country.
According to Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 of the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement, aspiring member states must meet specific political and territorial criteria before being invited to join:

"States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes, must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance."

Given this, a Russian invasion that creates territorial disputes within Ukraine's borders would make Ukraine ineligible to join NATO until that dispute is resolved. This stops NATO expansion towards Russia via Ukraine.

However, Russia probably miscalculated how the West would respond, and the plan backfired to some degree. NATO expanded towards Russia by way of Finland and Sweden.

NATO expansion towards Russia may not be a direct casus belli, and it is likely not the only or primary factor for Putin's adventure. But I am sure it was a contributing factor in Putin's decision making process. There may be other factors too - obtaining a warm water port (the 2014 Crimea invasion), and linking land/territory from Russia to Crimea by way of Ukrainian control.

Feel free to berate me if I stated the obvious

 

[william]

Sooooo...
NATO expanding its borders towards Russia is casis belli for Russia to start a war and invade Ukraine, which - if completely successful - would give Russia a much larger border with NATO countries than what it has now? Not to mention the European countries that have been added to NATO specifically because of Russia invading Ukraine?

I don't think you thought that cunning plan all the way through. For that matter, I don't think many people have thought their cunning plans all the way through lately.

I see your point and you're right, but what if the tables were turned and say canada suddenly aligned with russia and china against the US militarily and economically. How would the US respond. We saw how the US responded when russia put missiles in cuba. Defcon 2.

I'm not saying russia doesn't need to be stopped. They do. How do you do it now though without full NATO mobilization and I just don't see that happening.

 

[Publius]

Yep. This has been happening in one way or another for hundreds of years. You think the Crusades were really about Christianity versus Islam? (Spoiler Alert: They weren't.)

They were about the conquest and occupation of territory. What is forgotten or ignored is that prior to Islam the Levant, Byzantine, Egypt and many of the North Africas cities and finally Palestine were all predominantly Christian populations that already existed there for hundreds of years.

It’s helpful to remember whose territory was being taken from whom. Let’s not forget Spain as well.
The fact that one was already predominantly Christian and the other islam is the invading force is purely coincidental.

So it’s correct to say it wasn’t so much about faith as it was to cultural, political and also religious identities shared across the Mediterranean since the collapse of Rome.

It cannot be ignored that the crusades, however imperfect or ugly they were. Where ultimately a response to a Muslim expansion from what is Saudi Arabia today north into Macedonia and Slavic regions and then west and north into the Iberian peninsula till it was finally halted at Tours 150 miles SW of Paris.


I have defended the inconsistency in who is and isn’t still trading with who in the past. Because as it is you pointed out sometimes this just part of history.

My comment was made in response to the lack of credibility in attacking Trump over trade exemptions being made while all along ignoring the others that have been made and still are being made.

Personally I don’t like either, but as you indicated it’s just how it is sometimes.

 

[Publius]

If Ukraine were to join NATO, that would be an example of NATO clearly expanding its borders towards Russia. Thus, If one of Russia's goals is to keep NATO out of Ukraine, a Russian invasion accomplishes that, even if Russia cannot take over the entire country.
According to Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 of the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement, aspiring member states must meet specific political and territorial criteria before being invited to join:


Given this, a Russian invasion that creates territorial disputes within Ukraine's borders would make Ukraine ineligible to join NATO until that dispute is resolved. This stops NATO expansion towards Russia via Ukraine.

However, Russia probably miscalculated how the West would respond, and the plan backfired to some degree. NATO expanded towards Russia by way of Finland and Sweden.

NATO expansion towards Russia may not be a direct casus belli, and it is likely not the only or primary factor for Putin's adventure. But I am sure it was a contributing factor in Putin's decision making process. There may be other factors too - obtaining a warm water port (the 2014 Crimea invasion), and linking land/territory from Russia to Crimea by way of Ukrainian control.

Feel free to berate me if I stated the obvious

Russia achieved this strategic political win way back in 2014 with the sectarian hostilities Donbas and along the eastern boarder. Then they won another victory when they seized Crimea.

We are not going to stop this Russian momentum without a direct force on force exchange. While I do disagree on Russias “right” to do this. I simply think it needs to be acknowledged it’s not going to be stopped without some kinetic push back.
Do we see this or any past or NATO leadership supporting nato forces tangling with Russian in Ukraine?