Invading Ukraine was never about f%$'ing NATO (PROOF)

Texan, you're not accounting for the advancements in missile technology, satellite technology, and AI defense systems. Putin has made it perfectly clear how dire the threat to Russia and the world is, and yes - when NATO expands directly to the Russian border, it changes the millitary posture that Russia must assume for its own preservation. That is because the U.S. still will not denounce the first-strike nuclear option, and the U.S. under every president since Obama has let expire every nuclear agreement that was in place. Moreover, the U.S. has been consistent in application of sanctions and opposed Russia on the world stage at every instance.

When Putin says that it is an unacceptabe threat to Russia and the world to place NATO missiles close enough to Russia that they can hit Moscow in under 5-7 minutes, he's talking about geographic proximity and the upcoming high-speed systems that the U.S. is working on and will have in its arsenal, probably within 2-3 years. Russia already has these systems, and can obliterate all European capitals in less than 2 minutes. It would take about 15-20 minutes for Russia to vaporize American cities. Why does this matter? He told us why. It matters because the only way retaliatory strike decisions can be made with accuracy, fully confident not to decide in error, or to talk on a line between the Pentagon and the RMD is to try and get that flight time back where it was for all the Cold War years that kept our hides alive. There were a number of false alarms and tense times when cool heads prevailed, and communication facilitated the confidence that ICBMs should not be fired.

If this avenue is lost, as is happening due to NATO geographic expansion and supersonic missile technology, Russia will implement its Artificial Intelligence analytical, automatic response programs. Putin said when the launch-to-impact time is under a certain timeframe, which is where the U.S. is hell-bent on going, Russian A.I. is going to make the choice to respond IN FULL to any incoming missile, without any human decision, military or civilian. The A.I. response will end Western Civilisation. In response to this, the U.S. does not act sensibly. It does not denounce first strike. It does not seek nuclear disarmament or freeze, and it has violated its own treaties with Russia and the world in regards to NATO, nuclear, and space. The Pentagon via Milley and others has made it clear its intent is to advance its AI capabilities, its high-speed capabilities, and to win a war against Russia and China concurrently. Given this situation, NATO expansion is extremely relevant. The American coup d'etat of Ukraine, and its attempted coup in Kazakhstan are examples of NATO expansion efforts, as is the US intentionally working against peace in Ukraine so that NATO can expand along another frontier of Russia. The U.S. is hoping that its NATO expansion, space force advances, laser/microwave advances, etc. will make the war winnable for the entity, altbeit with a greaty reduced population (acceptable to Washington, our deaths are), and then they can finally achieve total hegemony over mankind. Our country's government and our apparent leadership are only a facade meant to fool us into compliance. That is not the case in Russia or China. They are not globalists.

This is why - back to your NATO opinion, that Russia cannot merely accept the independence of Lugansk and Donetsk anymore. Russia gave that option but has been rejected by the U.S. because the U.S. goals is to expand NATO, spend much more on war, draw the Iron Curtain and isolate Russia. You understand, the U.S. is a controlled entity seeking the destruction of Russia. It would rather incorporate China, India, and the others into its New World Order, the One World Government, but it has correctly ascertained the Chinese aren't going along with it, so they must go down also. The U.S. has been placing all the pressures it can on the European leaders, most of them installed puppets, or otherwise not strong enough to resist it. The window the U.S. wants is 2-5 years. It takes the chance that Russia and China won't go to war before that, while they can win. But Russia and China know all this, so if they decide they have to do it now, to increase their chance of victory, they have all the reasons to do so. They don't want war, but since there is nothing they can do to stop it, they won't wait until they are disadvantaged.

NATO already has missile proximity to Moscow. Gaining territory in Finland or Ukraine won't get them any more proximity to Moscow.

Putin conceded the NATO expansion issue in 2004.

He doesn't like it, but the damage was done a long time ago.

Additionally, and this is a key point that noone seems to understand (except Putin):

NATO is controlled solely by the US.
The US does whatever the fuck it wants.

Once you understand the above, NATO doesn't really matter. Because the US is gonna do whatever the fuck it wants to anyway
 
NATO already has missile proximity to Moscow. Gaining territory in Finland or Ukraine won't get them any more proximity to Moscow.

Putin conceded the NATO expansion issue in 2004.

He doesn't like it, but the damage was done a long time ago.

Additionally, and this is a key point that noone seems to understand (except Putin):

NATO is controlled solely by the US.
The US does whatever the $#@! it wants.

Once you understand the above, NATO doesn't really matter. Because the US is gonna do whatever the $#@! it wants to anyway

I strongly suspect that missile trajectories from Poland and the Baltic states represent a fairly narrow spectrum that Russia could counter with their ABM systems.

Ukraine is huge with a very long border with Russia, thus a much wider spectrum of missile trajectories into Russia.

I would find this unacceptable if I were Russia.
 
Ukraine never would have been invaded if their president wasn't an incompotent shithead.
 
I strongly suspect that missile trajectories from Poland and the Baltic states represent a fairly narrow spectrum that Russia could counter with their ABM systems.

Ukraine is huge with a very long border with Russia, thus a much wider spectrum of missile trajectories into Russia.

I would find this unacceptable if I were Russia.

And Finland?
 
Ukraine never would have been invaded if their president wasn't an incompotent shithead.

Correct...

But keep in mind he's also basically a puppet of Azov (and the right sector in general).

Zelensky won his election on a platform of making peace with Donbass, he even told the Azov to stand down to stop shelling Donbass. They didn't stop however.

At some point I guess Zelensky just gave up & just went all in with the nationalists. Some say the Azov threatened his life.
 
I strongly suspect that missile trajectories from Poland and the Baltic states represent a fairly narrow spectrum that Russia could counter with their ABM systems.

Ukraine is huge with a very long border with Russia, thus a much wider spectrum of missile trajectories into Russia.

I would find this unacceptable if I were Russia.

I explained it above. The issue is that once USNATO combines high-speed missiles with closer proximity, the response decision, including any chance at diplomatic/inter-military conversation is over. They need more than 5-7 minutes to make the decision concerning retaliation. Russia has the AI, but would rather not use it. AI is very dangerous. There is no real reason to separate what's happened in Ukraine from 2014 to this day from NATO expansion. The goal was, and remains, to integrate the Ukraine into NATO. This is why Russia insisted in its peace deal proposals that Ukraine never join NATO. In my opinion, Russia should step it up and march on to Kiev, their hesitations since Kiev rejected deals are costing them too much. Finland and Sweden are signing up for NATO. The cooler heads of NATO want a solution for Kaliningrad that includes Russian transportation rights. I don't know if that will fall by the wayside if Russia invades Kiev (nouveau Kyiv), but it has to. I don't know if any of you read Paul Craig Roberts, but it's looking like he was right all along. Russia should have gone harder and taken Ukraine with all its might. Now, it can still do so, but the costs are elevated significantly.
 
Ukraine is a money laundering country for all the rich politicians. The thing that struck me is, that the politicians in the USA, on Jan. 6, curled-up in fetal position when the people were invited into the capitol, but Pelosi, McConnell, Romney and the usual suspects all went over to war-torn Ukraine to see if everything was alright and to make sure that Zelensky had the proper equipment he needed to fight Putin. They went in-person to pick up their bags of money, they don't give a rat's ass about the Ukrainian people.

Somebody from Ukraine got caught leaving the country with millions, think it was a politicians wife at the Polish border?

The Ukrainian mafia is probably getting rich selling US weapons to terrorists.
 
Y'all seem to have forgotten that the current Ukraine Regime is not Ukraine. Please don't conflate the two.

The current UKR regime is criminal, presided over by a literal comedian, ascended through a bloody coup coordinated with a bunch of outside jews in 2014, and then they immedately went murdered 10-15,000 prisoners. Then they launched an Abraham Lincoln Style™ war of aggression in the east, killing another 15,000 people who just wanted to get the fuck away from the control of those evil scum.

Their schema of murdering incrementally until they get the punchback, then screaming foul in global controlled media, is the same now as then.

Yeah putin is H1tler... in a way.
 
Last edited:
The logical inconsistencies in this post make my head hurt.

First you say that Putin doesn't have to worry about non-NATO shelling because it isn't an issue, then you say if Ukraine joined NATO he would be forced to attack because of the shelling.

The shelling is a major issue regardless of whether Ukraine is in NATO or not.

And yes the shelling of Donbass and the general genocidal behavior to the Russians in that region, is absolutely cause enough alone to invade. Add on top of that things like securing territory, oil, minerals, securing the black sea, and you have more than enough reasons to invade. You can even throw NATO expansion in as a contributing factor if you want but Putin would have invaded with or without that reason.

Reintegrating Eastern Ukraine has been a life goal for Putin since as early as 2001. He views them as historically, ethnically, and culturally Russian, and he simply jumped at the opportunity to do it.

His reasons have nothing to do with "NATO expansion" and he even explicitly said this in the OP.

Not at all logically inconsistent.

NATO at border not doing anything = Putin not shaking in boots.

Neonazis shelling Donbass = Putin not shaking in boots. (This shelling has been going on since freaking 2014. So why the concern NOW?)

Neonazis shelling Donbass + Ukrain possibly about to join NATO = invasion.

It's not difficult to understand...if you want to understand it.
 
Your reading comprehension is bad.

Nope. It's just fine. You just have a preconceived notion and you lack the ability to understand anything that doesn't fit that preconceived notion.

Putin SAID NATO expansion into Ukraine was a problem for him but NATO expansion into Finland and Sweden is not. It's not that complicated. But you want to believe that NATO expansion isn't a problem for Putin at all, so you ignore Putin's words when it comes to Ukraine and conflate what Putin said about Finland and Sweden with what Putin said about Ukraine. You have propagandized yourself.
 
Nope. It's just fine. You just have a preconceived notion and you lack the ability to understand anything that doesn't fit that preconceived notion.

Putin SAID NATO expansion into Ukraine was a problem for him but NATO expansion into Finland and Sweden is not. It's not that complicated. But you want to believe that NATO expansion isn't a problem for Putin at all, so you ignore Putin's words when it comes to Ukraine and conflate what Putin said about Finland and Sweden with what Putin said about Ukraine. You have propagandized yourself.

Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I never said NATO expansion into Ukraine was not an issue for Putin, because it clearly is.

The mainstream media wants people to believe that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. By "NATO expansion" they mean, gaining territory in proximity to Moscow.

Putin did not invade Ukraine over NATO expansion in that sense, which is the sense that nearly everyone uses it in.

The only reason NATO expansion into Ukraine is an issue for Putin, is because NATO expansion into eastern Ukraine is an issue for Putin, because eastern Ukraine does not even belong to Ukraine and Ukraine has no authority to put eastern Ukraine into NATO.

It's not about NATO. That acronym could be replaced with anything. It's more about western intervention in general.

Does that make sense? Or do you need further assistance.

Putin SAID NATO expansion into Ukraine was a problem for him but NATO expansion into Finland and Sweden is not.

You are the one who is propagandized. Learn to read he says pretty clearly

"As for the assumption that we were fighting against NATO approaching us through Ukraine ... there is no substance behind it at all"

If you think the "no substance" was referring to the "..." part then yes your reading comprehension is bad.
 
Last edited:
Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I never said NATO expansion into Ukraine was not an issue for Putin, because it clearly is.

The mainstream media wants people to believe that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. By "NATO expansion" they mean, gaining territory in proximity to Moscow.

Putin did not invade Ukraine over NATO expansion in that sense, which is the sense that nearly everyone uses it in.

The only reason NATO expansion into Ukraine is an issue for Putin, is because NATO expansion into eastern Ukraine is an issue for Putin, because eastern Ukraine does not even belong to Ukraine and Ukraine has no authority to put eastern Ukraine into NATO.

It's not about NATO. That acronym could be replaced with anything. It's more about western intervention in general.

Does that make sense? Or do you need further assistance.

You just said what I said to start off with but you disagreed with for reasons I don't understand. So just to be clear, I AGREE with your position that NATO expansion by itself is not an issue. Putin isn't going to invade Finland or Sweden unless Finland or Sweden starts shelling Russians. It's NATO + Nazis that is the problem for Putin.
 
Not at all logically inconsistent.

NATO at border not doing anything = Putin not shaking in boots.

Neonazis shelling Donbass = Putin not shaking in boots. (This shelling has been going on since freaking 2014. So why the concern NOW?)

Neonazis shelling Donbass + Ukrain possibly about to join NATO = invasion.

It's not difficult to understand...if you want to understand it.

First off, your logic sucks because it doesn't explain at all Crimea.

Second, as for "why now", Ukraine military was about to begin an offensive to take over Donbass.

Third, your NATO explanation sucks balls because Ukraine was never going to join NATO, didn't want to join NATO, and still doesn't want to join NATO. Ukraine is run by nationalists who for whatever reason value their sovereignty (and not being ruled by NATO).

Fourth, even if you are right about "Donbass shelling + NATO = shaking" you're still basically admitting it's not about NATO, but the shelling. and NATO is just forcing the move from a timing perspective.
 
Last edited:
First off, your logic sucks because it doesn't explain at all Crimea.

Second, as for "why now", Ukraine military was about to begin an offensive to take over Donbass.

Third, your NATO explanation sucks balls because Ukraine was never going to join NATO, didn't want to join NATO, and still doesn't want to join NATO. Ukraine is run by nationalists who for whatever reason value their sovereignty (and not being ruled by NATO).

Fourth, even if you are right about "Donbass shelling + NATO = boots" you're still basically admitting it's not about NATO, but the shelling. and NATO is just forcing the move from a timing perspective.

LOL. Dude you already admitted you AGREE with my logic. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO. He doesn't give a crap about Finland or Sweden being part of NATO. So....you're blowing smoke.
 
You just said what I said to start off with but you disagreed with for reasons I don't understand. So just to be clear, I AGREE with your position that NATO expansion by itself is not an issue. Putin isn't going to invade Finland or Sweden unless Finland or Sweden starts shelling Russians. It's NATO + Nazis that is the problem for Putin.

Good we mostly agree then.

Even if NATO is forcing Putins hand (which I don't this is true but w/e), Putins invasion is not about NATO expansion, which is the point of this thread
 
LOL. Dude you already admitted you AGREE with my logic. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO. He doesn't give a crap about Finland or Sweden being part of NATO. So....you're blowing smoke.
"Want"

Putin probably wants a pony but he's not gonna start a war over it.

This thread isn't about what he wants, it's about why he invaded Ukraine, which is much more accurately summarized as "genocidal Nazis shelling Russians" than "NATO expansion"
 
Yea but that just reinforces how irrelevant NATO was to the decision to invade Ukraine.

If Ukraine promised never to join NATO, Putin would have invaded Ukraine.

If Ukraine agreed to join NATO, Putin would have invaded Ukraine.

If NATO had ceased to have existed on February 23, Putin would have still invaded Ukraine on February 24

But the main point is that there is Western pressure on Ukraine politics which drives the dispute and as a consequence there were zero negotiations? Does anyone believe Ukraine devoid of western influence and assistance and isolated would not have come to the negotiation table years ago? This is a direct consequence of NATO. Mearsheimer has a great take on this.
 
But the main point is that there is Western pressure on Ukraine politics which drives the dispute and as a consequence there were zero negotiations? Does anyone believe Ukraine devoid of western influence and assistance and isolated would not have come to the negotiation table years ago? This is a direct consequence of NATO. Mearsheimer has a great take on this.

I'm not disputing the fact that NATO (and western influence in general) had a big part to play in creating this situation.

My only point here is that NATO expansion (in the sense of, "proximity to Moscow") was not a relevant factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

I make this point, because universally in MSM and libertarian media, for some goddamn reason, everyone (Tucker, Rand, Massie, Dave Smith, McGregor, ....) all seem to primarily attribute the invasion to Putin's fear of NATO expansion. The actual reasons (genocidal Nazi's shelling Donbass) get only the briefest of mention (if ever, which is rare that it is discussed at all).

Consider it an educational outreach thread... for the knowledge of which, could contribute to preventing WW III.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top