nortex97 said:

---

INCOMPETENCE? Is it just me or does Ukraine seem utterly incompetent in the prosecution of the war? Now Zelensky is claiming Ukraine needs more time before it can start its offensive against Russia. Seriously? Perhaps he's crazy like a fox? https://t.co/GJ6j7rGKNX pic.twitter.com/NjZN0ONiwC

— @amuse (@amuse) May 11, 2023

"Give us more."

---

Should he instead be telling Russia the exact date of the offensive? If Eisenhower was asked on 6/1 when the invasion would begin, would you have preferred he say 6/5 or give a non-committal "we need more time"?

This is offensive is more than likely being coordiinated and planned by NATO leadership. As it should be.

P.U.T.U said:

---

Sometimes a good plan executed today beats a perfect plan executed too late.

Everyone knows the CIA is doing a fair amount of string pulling in this war. As of right now this seems to be we will see how it turned out and study it 20 years from now. The optimistic side of me says this war will harm Russia whether they win or lose since they are messing up their economy so much and losing a generation of working age males. But the CIA and US politicians has successfully failed strategically in almost every conflict the past 60 years, including the proxy wars like Russia vs Afghanistan. Heck we supplied weapons/intelligence to Iran and Iraq during that conflict which bit us in the butt 20 years later

---

I wonder about losing population comment for russia. They are a natural resource economy country. Since natural resources are finite if you shrink the total population you increase the GDP per capita. You also decrease the need for more imports of other goods.

Note im not advocating killing your people in war to boost your economy as a morally right strategy.

texagbeliever said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Sometimes a good plan executed today beats a perfect plan executed too late.

Everyone knows the CIA is doing a fair amount of string pulling in this war. As of right now this seems to be we will see how it turned out and study it 20 years from now. The optimistic side of me says this war will harm Russia whether they win or lose since they are messing up their economy so much and losing a generation of working age males. But the CIA and US politicians has successfully failed strategically in almost every conflict the past 60 years, including the proxy wars like Russia vs Afghanistan. Heck we supplied weapons/intelligence to Iran and Iraq during that conflict which bit us in the butt 20 years later

---

I wonder about losing population comment for russia. They are a natural resource economy country. Since natural resources are finite if you shrink the total population you increase the GDP per capita. You also decrease the need for more imports of other goods.

Note im not advocating killing your people in war to boost your economy as a morally right strategy.

---

Wow! A shrinking population = a boost to the economy????? I guess Russian ghosts buy goods as well.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Sometimes a good plan executed today beats a perfect plan executed too late.

Everyone knows the CIA is doing a fair amount of string pulling in this war. As of right now this seems to be we will see how it turned out and study it 20 years from now. The optimistic side of me says this war will harm Russia whether they win or lose since they are messing up their economy so much and losing a generation of working age males. But the CIA and US politicians has successfully failed strategically in almost every conflict the past 60 years, including the proxy wars like Russia vs Afghanistan. Heck we supplied weapons/intelligence to Iran and Iraq during that conflict which bit us in the butt 20 years later

---

I wonder about losing population comment for russia. They are a natural resource economy country. Since natural resources are finite if you shrink the total population you increase the GDP per capita. You also decrease the need for more imports of other goods.

Note im not advocating killing your people in war to boost your economy as a morally right strategy.

---

Wow! A shrinking population = a boost to the economy????? I guess Russian ghosts buy goods as well.

---

Saving this post as you both missed my point while clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of GDP. Bravo!

texagbeliever said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Sometimes a good plan executed today beats a perfect plan executed too late.

Everyone knows the CIA is doing a fair amount of string pulling in this war. As of right now this seems to be we will see how it turned out and study it 20 years from now. The optimistic side of me says this war will harm Russia whether they win or lose since they are messing up their economy so much and losing a generation of working age males. But the CIA and US politicians has successfully failed strategically in almost every conflict the past 60 years, including the proxy wars like Russia vs Afghanistan. Heck we supplied weapons/intelligence to Iran and Iraq during that conflict which bit us in the butt 20 years later

---

I wonder about losing population comment for russia. They are a natural resource economy country. Since natural resources are finite if you shrink the total population you increase the GDP per capita. You also decrease the need for more imports of other goods.

Note im not advocating killing your people in war to boost your economy as a morally right strategy.

---

Wow! A shrinking population = a boost to the economy????? I guess Russian ghosts buy goods as well.

---

Saving this post as you both missed my point while clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of GDP. Bravo!

---

Please do! Go ahead and explain GDP per capita to me while you're at it. Qatar has a higher GDP per person than the US, do you think Qatar is in better shape than the US? I need to hear this brilliant explanation of why a shrinking population is good for the economy.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Sometimes a good plan executed today beats a perfect plan executed too late.

Everyone knows the CIA is doing a fair amount of string pulling in this war. As of right now this seems to be we will see how it turned out and study it 20 years from now. The optimistic side of me says this war will harm Russia whether they win or lose since they are messing up their economy so much and losing a generation of working age males. But the CIA and US politicians has successfully failed strategically in almost every conflict the past 60 years, including the proxy wars like Russia vs Afghanistan. Heck we supplied weapons/intelligence to Iran and Iraq during that conflict which bit us in the butt 20 years later

---

I wonder about losing population comment for russia. They are a natural resource economy country. Since natural resources are finite if you shrink the total population you increase the GDP per capita. You also decrease the need for more imports of other goods.

Note im not advocating killing your people in war to boost your economy as a morally right strategy.

---

Wow! A shrinking population = a boost to the economy????? I guess Russian ghosts buy goods as well.

---

Saving this post as you both missed my point while clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of GDP. Bravo!

---

Please do! Go ahead and explain GDP per capita to me while you're at it. Qatar has a higher GDP per person than the US, do you think Qatar is in better shape than the US? I need to hear this brilliant explanation of why a shrinking population is good for the economy.

---

Let's say Qatar's GDP is $5 Trillion with 100 million people.
Let's say they went to war and lost 20 million. Their GDP dropped, only marginally because most of it is from oil & Gas to $4.5 T. So the GDP per capita went from $50k per person to $56k per person. So the average persons networth increased by $6k. That would be a sign of a healthier economy.

Obviously all numbers are made up for simpler calcs.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

---

Well I'm convinced. Russia never ever lies.

GAC06 said:

---

Yes, unprovoked. And a cartel killing an American is totally the same as bombing embassies and destroying the World Trade Center. You totally got me.

---

You have zero idea what unprovoked means.

But go ahead and believe the Russia, Russia, Russia narrative.

Amazing how they trotted it out to get Trump and yall didn't believe it.

They use the exact same tactics to screw over American taxpayers and yall fall for it hook line and sinker.

Teslag said:

---

This is offensive is more than likely being coordiinated and planned by NATO leadership. As it should be.

---

And yet plenty of people will quite sincerely argue that we are NOT a party to this conflict.

texagbeliever said:

---

To be fair, the fastest way Ukraine loses the war is if they attack and it fails completely. So they screw this up it is done.

---

Yeah man, good point. You probably right here.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Yes, unprovoked. And a cartel killing an American is totally the same as bombing embassies and destroying the World Trade Center. You totally got me.

---

You have zero idea what unprovoked means.

But go ahead and believe the Russia, Russia, Russia narrative.

Amazing how they trotted it out to get Trump and yall didn't believe it.

They use the exact same tactics to screw over American taxpayers and yall fall for it hook line and sinker.

---

This is the definition of unprovoked. Just like when they took Crimea. Just like when they took what they could in Lukansk and Donetsk.

They even knew how it would look bad so they staged those ludicrous false flags before invading. But it's not you who fell for a narrative, certainly not.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Teslag said:

---

This is offensive is more than likely being coordiinated and planned by NATO leadership. As it should be.

---

And yet plenty of people will quite sincerely argue that we are NOT a party to this conflict.

---

And as well maintain that Nato is purely a defensive treaty, not a threat to Russia, which is waging this war unprovoked purely out of a desire to enable it's soldiers to rape and kill or something. Y

et this pending nato-planned/armed/coordinated offensive will wipe out the Russian military.

Which is why it should be delayed into the summer, or fall, or next spring.

Or some things like that. I can't keep up with the various rationalizations (as I see them on twitter mainly, I don't watch cable/broadcast news at all.). And some blogs;

Quote:

---

Zelensky has moved the goalpost further into the future:

Quote:

---

Speaking at his headquarters in Kyiv, President Zelensky described combat brigades, some of which were trained by Nato countries, as being "ready" but said the army still needed "some things", including armoured vehicles that were "arriving in batches".

"With [what we already have] we can go forward, and, I think, be successful," he said in an interview for public service broadcasters who are members of Eurovision News, like the BBC. "But we'd lose a lot of people. I think that's unacceptable. So we need to wait. We still need a bit more time."

---

Time will not prevent that…any counteroffensive will lead to high casualty rates. In fact, waiting longer means more attacks on the troops in their current positions.

---

Sure, meanwhile, our forever-war military industrial complex is arguing, wait for it, (Foreign Affairs Michael Kofman and Rob Lee) a much longer war:

Quote:

---

Policymakers, however, have placed undue emphasis on the upcoming offensive without providing sufficient consideration of what will come afterward and whether Ukraine is well positioned for the next phase. It is critical that Ukraine's Western partners develop a long-term theory of victory for Ukraine, since even in the best-case scenario, this upcoming offensive is unlikely to end the conflict.

Indeed, what follows this operation could be another period of indeterminate fighting and attrition, but with reduced ammunition deliveries to Ukraine. This is already a long war, and it is likely to become protracted. History is an imperfect guide, but it suggests wars that endure for more than a year are likely to go on for at least several more and are exceedingly difficult to end. A Western theory of success must therefore prevent a situation in which the war drags on, but where Western countries are unable to provide Ukraine with a decisive advantage.

---

why are there so many WW3 fanbois posting on the one thread for non-WW3 fanbois?

I actually think it's great. There are some I just ignore but some of this is just again a further iteration of the same stuff as 'just wear a mask/get the jab' etc. A strong compulsion to mock/be intolerant of dissent.

It's mostly good natured and it keeps the thread humorous and bumped so, net, a good thing, imho.

If borders don't matter, I am unclear why I should care about Ukraine's. To think Biden did this little foot stomping routine for a reason other than to provoke the war would require a massive suspension of disbelief as to his character, given the facts we all know are true today.

The war was avoidable. Biden could have just agreed to Putin’s initial demands which essentially was just a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO. Instead, Biden said no, stomped his feet and called Putin names. How did that work out?

— Jason Baumann (@JasonBaumann9) May 11, 2023

Zelensky was, again for those who may be unaware, 'elected' (with CIA assistance) on a premise/campaign platform to bring peace.

First win an election before you make demands like this.. this is a perfect sign you are not the party to vote for when Ukraine was killing its own people you were silent.. pathetic. pic.twitter.com/CXofCPUvEB

— QuestionSA (@QuestionSA3) May 11, 2023

That...has not happened. With our border disastrously invaded/over-run according to Biden's plan, I fully expect team CCP-Xiden to ramp things up such that Russia will strike at Ukrainian grain exports and spike inflation globally further next week.

Talks between Russia, #Ukraine, Türkiye and the UN are underway in Istanbul, discussing the Black Sea Grain Initiative which allows safe export of grain from Ukrainian ports to reach global markets. Russia has threatened to quit the agreement if its demands are not met by May 18. pic.twitter.com/YjMg0VFx9W

— CGTN Global Watch (@GlobalWatchCGTN) May 11, 2023

oh no said:

---

why are there so many WW3 fanbois posting on the one thread for non-WW3 fanbois?

---

This is the conspiracy and Kremlin talking points thread. It can be amusing dunking on those drunk on propaganda

oh no said:

---

why are there so many WW3 fanbois posting on the one thread for non-WW3 fanbois?

---

They like talking to people that write for Pravda?

Teslag said:

---

So NATO now isn't a defensive organization because they won't let Russia invade and conquer a sovereign nation?

---

Is the NATO alliance intended to protect non members? Or was it chartered as a mutual defense pact exclusive to its members? Why does NATO feel the need to intervene in this particular conflict and not others? Does this make Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance? If so, would that not validate Russia's geopolitical fears that led them to invade in the first place?

You see, it's not quite so simple as "they're just defending a sovereign nation."

Russia has nothing at all to worry about if they'd stop invading neighboring countries. That's the recurring theme for them. Just be a peaceful neighbor. Russia borders many NATO countries, none have attacked Russia.

Teslag said:

---

Russia has nothing at all to worry about if they'd stop invading neighboring countries. That's the recurring theme for them. Just be a peaceful neighbor. Russia borders many NATO countries, none have attacked Russia.

---

Imagine having this simplistic of a view about geopolitics. "Just let your geopolitical adversary keep integrating your neighbors into their sphere of influence! What are you so mad about?!"

And you still didn't engage with any of my questions.

GAC06 said:

---

oh no said:

---

why are there so many WW3 fanbois posting on the one thread for non-WW3 fanbois?

---

This is the conspiracy and Kremlin talking points thread. It can be amusing dunking on those drunk on propaganda

---

people drunk on the western propaganda getting their rocks off on endless war and killing and infinite billions of our money going to lord Zelenskyy think they're "dunking" on people?

Yes, it's seriously funny.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine 'reconstruction grift' planning, the EU is targeting using 'climate change' goals as a driver of their aid/grift post-war. Climate change is a hoax to impoverish EU/American taxpayers and enrich our government overlords, of course, also in furtherance of China's geopolitical goals.

Quote:

---

The European Commission has confirmed that EU efforts to rebuild Ukraine will focus heavily on the bloc's green agenda goals, such as decarbonisation.

Many climate change-obsessed officials in the European Union have frequently cited Russia's war in Ukraine as posing an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions, with German climate change minister Robert Habeck even previously saying that the Volodymyr Zelensky administration's "real problem" was its use of coal, as opposed to the fact that a foreign army is occupying large swathes of the country.

More subtly echoing this provocative statement, EU commissioner Kadri Simson confirmed that efforts to aid Ukraine both during and after the war will focus heavily on the bloc's climate goals, with Brussels keen to push decarbonisation efforts in the invaded nation.
…
She also claimed that more decentralised green energy sources would alleviate some pressure on the country's energy grid and help keep homes and other public amenities supplied with electricity.
Simson appears to be suggesting that such sources be used alongside more traditional fossil fuel power generation methods, such as diesel generators.

In this way, the commissioner's desire for green energy in the invaded nation appears to diverge from other climate-obsessed politicians on the continent, with other officials seeing the war as an opportunity to further distance Europe from fossil fuels.

One particularly radical politician, German climate change minister Robert Habeck, has seen the conflict as a way to force both his own country and Ukraine off of fossil fuel, describing Russia's invasion as an "invitation" to push climate ideology even further. Halbeck, in one of those ironies of modern green politics, it also dead-set against nuclear energy despite it producing zero-carbon electricity.

Habeck even previously suggested that Ukraine's "real problem" was that it was still burning large amounts of dirty fossil fuels such as coal, and seemingly not the fact that Vladimir Putin had invaded the sovereign nation with well over 200,000 troops loyal to Russia.

"The fact that over 90 per cent of Ukraine's electricity currently comes from coal, gas and nuclear power plants is the real problem for the country," he said.

---

Can't make this stuff up. Not the war, not depopulation, the 'big problem in Ukraine' is…that it uses coal/nuclear power still. Sigh…

For those so inclined, here is an amusing (if profane, warning) writer tying some of this all together, Sudan, Blackrock, Zelensky, Nato, fake 'journalism' etc.

Here is as well a good interview (youtube at link) with Mike Mihajlovic on the 'counter-offensive' and logistics. Neutral observers (he is Serbian, fyi) are not quite on the same page as our propaganda press, needless to say.

Honest question: how was life for Crimean residents post-annexation? And was their experience better or worse than it years of war tearing through their streets?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So NATO now isn't a defensive organization because they won't let Russia invade and conquer a sovereign nation?

---

Is the NATO alliance intended to protect non members? Or was it chartered as a mutual defense pact exclusive to its members? Why does NATO feel the need to intervene in this particular conflict and not others? Does this make Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance? If so, would that not validate Russia's geopolitical fears that led them to invade in the first place?

You see, it's not quite so simple as "they're just defending a sovereign nation."

---

Putin has made it clear that his ultimate aim is reassembling, in some form or fashion, the old Russian Empire, which entails asserting Russian dominance over Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, for starters. Ukraine was intended to be the first step in that process. Having Putin fail at the first hurdle has minimized the chance of an actual direct military action involving a NATO member, and that only came about because NATO members provided support to Ukraine.

And yes, in the process of looking out for their own defensive self interest, they are also defending a sovereign nation -- something Putin refuses to acknowledge. Do you deny that Ukraine is a sovereign nation?

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So NATO now isn't a defensive organization because they won't let Russia invade and conquer a sovereign nation?

---

Is the NATO alliance intended to protect non members? Or was it chartered as a mutual defense pact exclusive to its members? Why does NATO feel the need to intervene in this particular conflict and not others? Does this make Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance? If so, would that not validate Russia's geopolitical fears that led them to invade in the first place?

You see, it's not quite so simple as "they're just defending a sovereign nation."

---

Putin has made it clear that his ultimate aim is reassembling, in some form or fashion, the old Russian Empire, which entails asserting Russian dominance over Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, for starters. Ukraine was intended to be the first step in that process. Having Putin fail at the first hurdle has minimized the chance of an actual direct military action involving a NATO member, and that only came about because NATO members provided support to Ukraine.

And yes, in the process of looking out for their own defensive self interest, they are also defending a sovereign nation -- something Putin refuses to acknowledge. Do you deny that Ukraine is a sovereign nation?

---

That depends on how you define "sovereign" in geopolitical terms.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So NATO now isn't a defensive organization because they won't let Russia invade and conquer a sovereign nation?

---

Is the NATO alliance intended to protect non members? Or was it chartered as a mutual defense pact exclusive to its members? Why does NATO feel the need to intervene in this particular conflict and not others? Does this make Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance? If so, would that not validate Russia's geopolitical fears that led them to invade in the first place?

You see, it's not quite so simple as "they're just defending a sovereign nation."

---

Putin has made it clear that his ultimate aim is reassembling, in some form or fashion, the old Russian Empire, which entails asserting Russian dominance over Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, for starters. Ukraine was intended to be the first step in that process. Having Putin fail at the first hurdle has minimized the chance of an actual direct military action involving a NATO member, and that only came about because NATO members provided support to Ukraine.

And yes, in the process of looking out for their own defensive self interest, they are also defending a sovereign nation -- something Putin refuses to acknowledge. Do you deny that Ukraine is a sovereign nation?

---

That depends on how you define "sovereign" in geopolitical terms.

---

Ukriane was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, including Russia. Can we start there? Are you seriously trying to suggest they aren't ?

Ukraine has never really been independent/sovereign. It's definitely been a puppet state since 2014. A ***** piano player for president? C'mon, man. I've gone through the ethnic/cultural/statehood history of the people who have lived in Ukraine over the past few centuries several times.

Not gonna do it again today but suffice to say Ukraine's biggest problem, again, before the war started in 2022 was depopulation and a complete loss of younger families/birth rates over the previous 10 years. Now, the Biden-Zelensky war of attrition has utterly ended any hopes of a future independent Ukraine with it's own population/culture.

Won't happen.

It has to be re-populated by others now. Better chance otherwise that our border with Mexico is secure by noon today.

Turkish Interior Minister Suleiman Soylu has again accused the USA of interfering in the election process in the country , regarding the decision of one of the presidential candidates, Muharrem Ince, to withdraw from the pre-election race.

— Spriter (@Spriter99880) May 12, 2023

Big shocker, there.

The Chinese envoy is embarking on a diplomatic tour with the aim of solving the Ukrainian crisis

China's Special Envoy for Eurasia Li Hui will begin a diplomatic tour on May 15, during which he will visit Russia, Ukraine, Poland, France and Germany, the Ministry of Foreign…

— Spriter (@Spriter99880) May 12, 2023

I suspect a real further 'counteroffensive' or attempt to take a substantive piece of geography back will not happen, as this indicates further/again that the Chinese-Russians-Zelensky group have an agreed price tag the EU/Biden will pay to re-construct now a la black rock etc. A lot of theater between now and whenever the announcement is made, but my guess is something on the order of $1.8 trillion, with ongoing $$$ then for at least 10 years through the laundering machinery. My further guess is the US will commit somehow, under Biden before he leaves office, to something on the order of 1.2 trillion, and the Euro's will make vague promises of 50 percent or so of what he does, but we will pick up more of the tab and his successors will be 'obligated' to keep it going at the behest of folks like miss lindsey/mittens/Rubio, swamp Inc. etc.

The coke head in green is meeting with the Italian PM on Saturday, presumably part of his EU tour of promise collecting as to rebuilding/graft terms post-war.

oh no said:

---

why are there so many WW3 fanbois posting on the one thread for non-WW3 fanbois?

---

Just like the reason F84 existed yet the covid vaccine/mask/lockdown nazis rushed over to F16 to decry any criticism of those topics. They are insecure and afraid. They have made up their minds what the right solution is and any challenge to that is perceived as an attack on them.

You have the talking points that Russia is so strong they are going to walk all over western Europe if we give up Ukraine but Russia is so weak and incompetent Ukraine will roll them in 2 weeks.

Covid: Ukraine war :
Masks : putin will be assassinated
No lockdowns : Russia is going to roll through Poland in 2 weeks
4% kill rate : Nuclear bombs!!
Fake News : Pravda

The playbook is so repetitive and obvious it is frankly embarrassing people don't see they are being played. Try it out with the Iraq War. You will see the pattern.

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So NATO now isn't a defensive organization because they won't let Russia invade and conquer a sovereign nation?

---

Is the NATO alliance intended to protect non members? Or was it chartered as a mutual defense pact exclusive to its members? Why does NATO feel the need to intervene in this particular conflict and not others? Does this make Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance? If so, would that not validate Russia's geopolitical fears that led them to invade in the first place?

You see, it's not quite so simple as "they're just defending a sovereign nation."

---

Putin has made it clear that his ultimate aim is reassembling, in some form or fashion, the old Russian Empire, which entails asserting Russian dominance over Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, for starters. Ukraine was intended to be the first step in that process. Having Putin fail at the first hurdle has minimized the chance of an actual direct military action involving a NATO member, and that only came about because NATO members provided support to Ukraine.

And yes, in the process of looking out for their own defensive self interest, they are also defending a sovereign nation -- something Putin refuses to acknowledge. Do you deny that Ukraine is a sovereign nation?

---

That depends on how you define "sovereign" in geopolitical terms.

---

No, it doesn't. It's a simple question. But your evasive response says it all.

---

It's not quite so simple. In power political terms there are only about 3 truly sovereign nations on earth- USA, China, and arguably Russia. Everyone else falls under the sway of one of these three, and when they do something that they're overlord, for lack of a better term, doesn't like them bad things tend to happen. So within this framework- was Iraq truly a sovereign nation? Afghanistan? If yes, then the USA committed the same crime which you accuse Russia of with regards to Ukraine. If no, why not? What makes Ukraine sovereign and the others not?

I want to be clear that I am not making a value judgment here or arguing whether this or that is justified. Just discussing how geopolitics works as matter of fact.

Teslag said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

twk said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Teslag said:

---

So NATO now isn't a defensive organization because they won't let Russia invade and conquer a sovereign nation?

---

Is the NATO alliance intended to protect non members? Or was it chartered as a mutual defense pact exclusive to its members? Why does NATO feel the need to intervene in this particular conflict and not others? Does this make Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance? If so, would that not validate Russia's geopolitical fears that led them to invade in the first place?

You see, it's not quite so simple as "they're just defending a sovereign nation."

---

Putin has made it clear that his ultimate aim is reassembling, in some form or fashion, the old Russian Empire, which entails asserting Russian dominance over Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, for starters. Ukraine was intended to be the first step in that process. Having Putin fail at the first hurdle has minimized the chance of an actual direct military action involving a NATO member, and that only came about because NATO members provided support to Ukraine.

And yes, in the process of looking out for their own defensive self interest, they are also defending a sovereign nation -- something Putin refuses to acknowledge. Do you deny that Ukraine is a sovereign nation?

---

That depends on how you define "sovereign" in geopolitical terms.

---

Ukriane was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, including Russia. Can we start there? Are you seriously trying to suggest they aren't ?

---

I am suggesting that sovereignty in actual terms is not so simple as supranational governmental bodies declaring it so.