Miloburke

So, Russia can invade Ukraine and kill its people because Zelensky is a globalist shill who supports Zuckerberg, Soros, the Bidens and other globalist minions. Really? When the Republicans win back the House and Senate this year and Trump is reelected in 2024 should the U.S. outlaw the Democratic Party? After all, according to you, they are globalist shills who supports Zuckerberg, Soros, the Bidens and other globalist minions. If the Republicans do not win back the congress and the White House should the right mount a civil war?

So, the answer to the problem is Russia has every right to flatten Ukraine, kill civilians and it is all Zelensky's fault. Wow, My worldview is myopic? You can't see past the edge of your alt-right echo chamber. But that's okay, you have a right to your view. If Putin believes Russia has a right to attack its neighbour because it happens to be between NATO and China, then he suffering from a bad case of paranoia. As I said, NATO has too many members with different political views to agree on a preemptive strike on Russia. Besides, we learn from history, Napoleon and Hitler both tried to invade Russia and look how those turned out. Anyone who would contemplate picking a fight with Russia needs to be institutionalized.

> I was in the military for 3 years, took NBCD training twice in that time. I've never had any NBCD training before or since. Ditto, I remember the training, but that was back in the 60s when the threat was high. > If Putin doesn't push back right now the Russian people have a knife at their throat for the foreseeable future. What knife? Do you seriously believe that Ukraine in particular and NATO in general is an aggressive threat to Russia? News flash, the people of Canada, the U.S, and the U.E. wouldn't stand for such a move. It would be political suicide for the party in power. > Zelensky started a war. ???Who fired the first shot? For Zelensky to start a war with Russia is like me going next door to my neighbour, a retired heavyweight boxer, and throwing a punch. > Why should the Russian people suffer from our threats at the same time as they suffer their dictatorship? Why should the Ukrainian people suffer from Russian shelling of residential neighbourhoods? > The fact is that you only see the world from your myopic POV and you don't see the suffering of other people as meaningful. Wow, I guess the suffering of Ukrainians is neither here nor there. Anyway, how were the Russian people suffering before the invasion of Ukraine and how is the west responsible if they were? By the way, I see the situation just fine. I suggest you take off your ideological glasses and see what is really happening.

Fair enough.

How exactly did Britain start the WWI? This i news to me.

You didn't answer the question. I know why Russia doesn't want NATO there, it limits it's sphere of influence. So let me ask again, What could Ukraine do to Russia as a member of the EU or NATO that they cannot do now? If you don't know just say so.

Hi Faramir, > The British were wrong to think they could put Germany down a notch. I am not sure what yo mean. Could you expand on it.

In what way? What could Ukraine do to Russia as a member of the EU or NATO that they cannot do now?

Do you think the UE wants strategic nukes along their 2,000 km border with Russia? Besides strategic nukes don't have to be on the border, they can be launched from anywhere on the planet.

Come on, what are the chances that we would sign such a pact with China. It reminds me of an old Andy Capp cartoon where panel one showed a guy laying on the sidewalk with stars circling his head, panel two showed Andy and a cop with the cop saying, "Let me get this straight, you thought he was going to hit you so you hit him back first." If you are going to make an argument at least make the scenario plausible.

But Article 5 says, "an armed attack against one or more" NATO members "shall be considered an attack against them all." Please note, it does not say, "an armed attack by one or more" NATO members." The only thing NATO membership for Ukraine would mean is that Russia could not do what it is doing. Why do you think Sweden and Finland, two traditional neutrals are contemplating joining NATO? An interesting thought, could an accidental missile strike on Polish soil trigger Article 5?

You have a lot of "what ifs" in that post, however you have not explained how Ukraine is a threat to Russia. But for the sake of the discussion let's see what threat they could be. There are two possibilities that one might argue is a threat. 1. Ukraine joins NATO. The problem is NATO by definition is strictly a defensive treaty. By their bylaws they cannot instigate an attack on Russia. As long as Russia doesn't attack a NATO member they have nothing to worry about. 2. Ukraine joins the UE. The UE by its very nature cannot mount an aggression against Russia because of the complexity of the organization. The physical threat to Russia in both instances is slim to none. This is not about a threat to Russian sovereignty, but Russia's sphere of influence and its political system. If Ukraine becomes a western style democracy and thrives, then Russians might want the same and Putin cannot allow that to happen and he is prepared to destroy the Ukraine in have his way. Of course he has miscalculated in the extreme. The Ukrainians have not folded up like a cheap blanket, the west has not stood by and much to my surprise neither have multinational corporations. Who would have thought that MacDonald's would shut down their 500 plus stores with the resultant hit to the bottom line. Of course you could argue that it is just good PR, but they are also going to continue to pay their employees for no work. Let hope Putin doesn't do something stupid.

Hi WestCanMan, Can you explain how Ukraine is a threat to the peaceful existence of Russia? I have tried to look at it from several angles, but it alludes me.