Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

Who wouldn't want a guard dog if they had Putin as a neighbour?

Putin maybe hates the barking not the neighbour? Seems you are saying that NATO were barking at the gates of Russia?

[SydneyRover]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IdBuH0OOo

[BobG]

Putin has been posturing, threatening, deploying, attacking, and murdering, for years and years. I'd certainly want a whole herd of guard dogs. Nuclear armed guard dogs!

BobG.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The ignorance of history from the Far Left/Right is quite something.

They'd have to believe the ex-USSR/Warsaw Pact countries were forcibly taken over by a NATO intent on military action against Moscow.  Whereas the fact is they queued up to join NATO the first chance they got, as an insurance against Russia. Because they know their history. And they know what Russia has ways done to weaker neighbours. Devoured them.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The ignorance of history from the Far Left/Right is quite something.

They'd have to believe the ex-USSR/Warsaw Pact countries were forcibly taken over by a NATO intent on military action against Moscow.  Whereas the fact is they queued up to join NATO the first chance they got, as an insurance against Russia. Because they know their history. And they know what Russia has ways done to weaker neighbours. Devoured them.

Agreed, however, this is more rhetoric from you. You know full well Ukraine is a different kettle of fish.

[BobG]

I thought I remembered a notably succesful Polish anti Soviet security services plot from maybe 30 or 40 years ago. I was going to use it to illustrate the stunning and continuing hate/hate relationship between these two countries and therefore suggest that your point, Billy, is emphatically proven. Snag is, although I'm sure I've read about this somewhere or other, I can't find it on the net tonight. Maybe my search skills are just too shit..... Still, the multiple rapes of Poland by Russia are a pretty obvious reason why Poland would want to join NATO as soon as it possibly could.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

The ignorance of history from the Far Left/Right is quite something.

They'd have to believe the ex-USSR/Warsaw Pact countries were forcibly taken over by a NATO intent on military action against Moscow.  Whereas the fact is they queued up to join NATO the first chance they got, as an insurance against Russia. Because they know their history. And they know what Russia has ways done to weaker neighbours. Devoured them.

Agreed, however, this is more rhetoric from you. You know full well Ukraine is a different kettle of fish.

By "rhetoric" do you mean "facts"?

[Dutch Uncle]

Out of consideration for two people I respect I have stayed out of this thread recently, despite having strong views on and experience of NATO. However I would like say a few things and pose some questions.

NATO was set up as a Defensive Alliance, with the cornerstone Article 5 only kicking when any country is attacked. Post 1989 major reviews took place and a changing in role was slowly agreed, allowing operations is places such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Others are easily forgotten – e.g. Humanitarian Relief in Pakistan after an earthquake in 2005.  The first emphasis is always on Peacekeeping and Humanitarian aid, although offensive operations have occasionally been undertaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations

Note that for any operation to be initiated a unanimous vote by each member country’s political leader (or designated deputy) is required  - every single nation has a veto. It is very difficult for any nation to railroad all the others into action – the US has failed, e.g in the first Gulf War when France said no. The war was actually fought by an ad-hoc coalition of nations, some NATO members and some not.

This makes NATO itself a very stable influence against any member nation’s potential aggressive ideas.

So my questions (to everyone, but particularly BRR) are:
•   Do you believe that NATO has the ambition to militarily defeat Russia? That is do you believe that all 30 nations wish to vote for it and risk nuclear annihilation?
•   Do you believe NATO is actually helping to calm down potentially aggressive thoughts in some member nations' Governments?
•   Do you believe that Stoltenberg speaks for NATO or just himself?

On the other hand, do I believe that some NATO member nations would like to be more aggressive? Certainly, but often for internal political reasons.

IMHO NATO is the single most successful (and misunderstood) organisation since WW2. Putin doesn’t like it because it gets in the way of his territorial ambitions, not because he feels threatened by an attack from it.  His recent comparison of himself with Peter the Great shows the level of those geographical ambitions and underscores why Finland and Sweden want to protect themselves. No-one wants to enter a war with Russia. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

"NATO is the single most successful (and misunderstood) organisation since WW2. Putin doesn’t like it because it gets in the way of his territorial ambitions, not because he feels threatened by an attack from it. "

This. In spades.

I'd make only one qualification to that, which I've pointed out several times before. In terms of European security, NATO has been part of a double act with the EU. NATO has been the guarantor of protection against external aggression. But it hasn't done much for the internal stability and democratic integrity of member states. NATO was happy to have countries as members despite them being military dictatorships (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey) and despite major internal fighting bordering on localised civil wars breaking out (Northern Ireland, the Basque country) and despite NATO forces supporting if not actively engaging in a proxy ear against each other (Greece and Turkey over Cyprus).

None of those things have ever started within one or between two EU countries 

I'm not convinced that NATO would have been able to maintain European stability without the EU. It might have maintained peace, but I suspect it would have been a harsher peace. Because, pragmatically, NATO on its own would have been prepared for nasty localised things to happen in member countries as long as that country stayed firm on the outward facing stance.

[Dutch Uncle]

Fully agree with that BST.

Edit: (after rereading your post a bit more carefully BST) I would replace

'NATO forces supporting if not actively engaging in a proxy war against each other (Greece and Turkey over Cyprus)'

with ' forces of two NATO member countries supporting if not actively engaging in a proxy war against each other (Greece and Turkey over Cyprus)'


Pedantic but IMHO a very important distinction, as I recall it was not approved by NATO as a NATO mission.

But I fully agree with what you are saying.

[danumdon]

I think you've been very generous to the EU there BST , as is your want. If the EU had been such a bulwark alongside NATO then we would of expected all of the constituent nation's to have coughed up the min 2% of GDP towards their NATO contribution, the fact that they (mainly)haven't and dont tells you a great deal about what the majority of the EU think about who is or should be providing the bulk of their security.

Its well known that some (talking about you France)pay very much lip service to NATO and only really engage when it suits them to or they have issues sorting out former colonies. The Germans still trade very much on their losers remorse and have used this excuse for too long now, as the biggest economy in the EU they should of by now been carrying a far greater load. They have new issues with the Eastern accession countries that are still bubbling over. The EU just does not do joined up thinking unless its on their terms.

The EU have also very much blinked with the current issues in Ukraine, as they usually do, national interests have come to the fore again and the big hitters have made their own personal decisions as to how they have come together as a unified force, The action that they now have agreed to is too little too late and is sustaining the lunatic in Russia and enabling him to bypass the full force of applied sanctions because of self interest.

Lets hope this conflict does not develop into a greater regional conflict because without the usual two to come to their aid the EU will be toast, the worst thing is they know this and will use it to ensure we are there again with the US to provide their security.

NATO has been and will continue to be the unifying force for this region, until such time as they stupidly agree with Macron and attempt to have their own Security force, outside of the umbrella of NATO or they manage to piss of the US to such an extent that they go full isolationist on them.

If that occurs then welcome to WW3 sooner rather than later.

These people take nothing from history and keep repeating the same errors over and over.

[Dutch Uncle]

Danum

Let me make clear that I do not support the concept of a European Army outside of NATO, and this has never been popular within NATO. Non-NATO members of the EU can all participate via the NATO Partnership for Peace Program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army

Where the EU has been and is complementary to NATO is in organising sanctions and showing political solidarity short of military involvement. With respect to that and to internal security IMHO BST has a very valid point. And Yes all nations, EU or otherwise (and several NATO members are not EU - Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, USA) could all do a better job of paying their 2% GDP

[turnbull for england]

It's just lovely on any discussion when knowledge rolls in over opinions.  Cheers

[danumdon]

Danum

Let me make clear that I do not support the concept of a European Army outside of NATO, and this has never been popular within NATO. Non-NATO members of the EU can all participate via the NATO Partnership for Peace Program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army

Where the EU has been and is complementary to NATO is in organising sanctions and showing political solidarity short of military involvement. With respect to that and to internal security IMHO BST has a very valid point. And Yes all nations, EU or otherwise (and several NATO members are not EU - Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, USA) could all do a better job of paying their 2% GDP

Fair enough DU, i do hope the political solidarity holds out for the duration of this conflict.

My fear is that when this conflict drags on into and beyond next winter that the political solidarity has not given way to National expediency from certain EU nations, its already public knowledge that the French and Germans are not prepared to do the hard yards and are angling for a political settlement that will not be acceptable to the Ukraine or the majority of the Free world.

[Dutch Uncle]

Agreed Danum, and the continuity of political will to continue is equally valid and important for both EU and NATO.

[danumdon]

Agreed Danum, and the continuity of political will to continue is equally valid and important for both EU and NATO.

Agreed DU.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The ignorance of history from the Far Left/Right is quite something.

They'd have to believe the ex-USSR/Warsaw Pact countries were forcibly taken over by a NATO intent on military action against Moscow.  Whereas the fact is they queued up to join NATO the first chance they got, as an insurance against Russia. Because they know their history. And they know what Russia has ways done to weaker neighbours. Devoured them.

Agreed, however, this is more rhetoric from you. You know full well Ukraine is a different kettle of fish.

By "rhetoric" do you mean "facts"?

Using "facts" in an almost but not wholly in context way.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD
With respect you are not engaging with the point I'm making.

I fully appreciate that the EU hasn't been the main driver of European protection against EXTERNAL threats (USSR/Russia predominantly). That's been NATO'S role.

What the EU has done spectacularly well is to buttress the INTERNAL security of Europe. That's not been due to NATO.

Don't forget that Europe has, throughout history, been THE most dangerous place in the world. Driven by a combination of weakly unstable states disintegrating, and friction between strong states.

The EU has been central to getting those nations to be more stable and less aggressive. We have no more fascist dictatorships in western and central Europe. No more serious internal conflicts. No more threats of military action between states.

People who want the demise of the EU need to think very long and hard about European history. 

[Bristol Red Rover]

So my questions (to everyone, but particularly BRR) are:
•   Do you believe that NATO has the ambition to militarily defeat Russia? That is do you believe that all 30 nations wish to vote for it and risk nuclear annihilation?
•   Do you believe NATO is actually helping to calm down potentially aggressive thoughts in some member nations' Governments?
•   Do you believe that Stoltenberg speaks for NATO or just himself?

On the other hand, do I believe that some NATO member nations would like to be more aggressive? Certainly, but often for internal political reasons.

IMHO NATO is the single most successful (and misunderstood) organisation since WW2. Putin doesn’t like it because it gets in the way of his territorial ambitions, not because he feels threatened by an attack from it.  His recent comparison of himself with Peter the Great shows the level of those geographical ambitions and underscores why Finland and Sweden want to protect themselves. No-one wants to enter a war with Russia. 

I think if you can see NATO as simply the combination of countries that make it up, an alliance with explicit aims, almost a union of nations with the aim of keeping peace within their borders, then this is a very positive.

However, we live in a world where people everywhere are trying to grasp more power, more wealth. Hence NATO becomes a tool for those that have influence over it both in obvious ways, eg the member states themselves, notably the larger ones, and in less obvious ways where.... well, money and power has its way.

In my first paragraph above, and to a point within my second paragraph, the ideal and aim of peace reigns. Economies benefit from stability, people overall benefit from this - this is how NATO is sold to the masses and those with genuine good hearted interests. But then there are those that benefit from conflict through arms sales, investments, and so on, as well as those that benefit from grabbing land and resources eg in Iraq, Afghanistan, potentially Ukraine, as well as destabilising nations and economies that don't suit them eg Libya, Russia, China and historically almost if not all of South America, Africa and Asia. These people have a great deal of personal power, and we can argue about how much influence they have over some aspects of NATO. They certainly have zero humanity, being driven by the most sick, perverted and base human instincts. Yes, much of the crimes committed in these places are outside of the influence of NATO, but the strength of NATO does underpin their ability to influence actions worldwide.

Does NATO wish to destroy the power and influence of Russia? Not by its overt aims and ideals, but most definitely by other factors outside of the "nice" shopfront. It probably wouldn't want to do that by direct military action but by proxy, as in the Ukraine now, then of course those powerful people and institutions want shut of Russia as something outside of their world, or as it is often seen in the US, a Russia that threatens their world.

Does NATO calm down potentially aggressive desires by some nations. Yes. Currently, I am sure there are some nations pushing for more aggression towards Russia, most notably Poland. And Germany? They are good at keepiing hush, and their situation here is more complex.

Stoltenberg, I don't know. I'm sure he is voicing some of his views, but of course is an experienced politician. He no doubt has influences that we don't know about.

A Ukraine within NATO, within the EU, is destabilising for that region, and for Ukraine itself. The western media and givernments and institutions and NATO and the EU's impression of a free Ukraine within that, its people all behind it, "democracy" ruling etc is fairytale nonsense.

[Dutch Uncle]

BRR - many thanks for a reasoned reply and answering my questions. There is a lot I can agree with to some extent in your reply and I think I now understand your position much better. I am busy for a couple of hours and will come back if I may with a reasoned response - I just wanted to say right away that I appreciate your response.





Edit: BRR - my response:

Thank you for your patience. I do apologise for this response being so long, and I am happy to discuss what is mainly opinions of mine. We may differ, but maybe not by as much as might be thought.

I think in general terms over the last days I had been a little disturbed by your implied equivalence of Russia and ‘NATO’ by which I take to mean major nations within NATO (US for one). There may well be some loose equivalence between global ambitions of Russia and say the US, but IMHO there is clear black and white between the lengths of violence and destruction they are prepared to go to achieve them. To this end the carpet bombing in Vietnam was half a century ago when precision munitions were not an option, and as far as I recall cities were not attacked and flattened with the scale of loss of life and infrastructure the Russians have caused in Chechnya, Syria (not only the Russians there of course) and now Ukraine. I cannot recall any western operation using anywhere near the scale, lengths and depths of indiscriminate shelling of multiple large cities including residential areas, hospitals, schools etc. I know a Chinese embassy was famously hit once in Belgrade but that was an isolated incident which can clearly be put down to error.

I accept that the US, EU, NATO are involved in this conflict, but via economic, presumably cyber and information means plus limited supply of weapons to Ukrainians. I do not see the equivalence of this with the level of violence that Russia is wreaking.

Which leads to the point of who is the aggressor and what brought Putin to this decision. The expression ‘NATO expansion eastwards’ may be a geographical fact but is very misleading. It suggests significant lobbying or pressure even on the former ‘Buffer States’ of the Warsaw Pact, and former parts of the USSR which became independent countries (I make a real distinction between the two). The buffer states (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the then Czechoslovakia and East Germany) were supposedly ‘independent’ countries during the cold war, although the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968 might disagree when the Russian tanks came rolling in. As far as I recall there was little active lobbying, they all very much wished to join NATO. The era of Gorbachev and Yeltsin which allowed these countries their real freedom (as a result of the USSR not being able to keep up with the US in defence research into ‘Star Wars’ technology) was not seen as necessarily permanent in their eyes and they wanted the future security guarantee that NATO membership would give. Certainly they and NATO were not preparing themselves for some kind of assault and attack eastwards. These countries had IMHO a clear right to independence to make their own decisions.   

Then we have the parts of the former USSR which gained independence under Gorbachov and Yeltsin, and the picture is slightly murkier. Do they have the right to independence and self government? The west would say yes (and that is also my opinion) – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are UN members and now members of NATO and at their own request, but I can see Russia having a different viewpoint. Ukraine, Georgia and all the ‘stans’ (Uzbekhistan etc..) are members of UN and recognized as independent nations. This clearly too much for Putin who openly compares himself with Peter the Great and clearly wishes to restore all these now independent countries to the greater Russia. This includes parts of Finland and Sweden.  I don’t know if it is a good comparison, but maybe it is like the UK deciding the Republic of Ireland should once again become part of the UK.

One last comment on this balance between NATO and Russia. In the late 1990s through until 2008 Russia was welcomed with open arms into the NATO Partnership for Peace Program (PfP) and took part in many exercises. I experienced senior Russians Generals telling us about their operational experiences in the Russian military forces and them learning about some NATO procedures. I was so hopeful of a lasting cooperation and understanding which is vital to lasting peace. Then Putin went into Georgia, received a backlash from the west, and promptly pulled Russia out of all PfP activities. It has been downhill since then.

Back to your post in more detail. I have tried to suggest that NATO is too large and stable organization to bend to one countries wishes – certainly I never saw any suggestion of that. Just try suggesting that to the French. 

Then the issue of the arms industry. I don’t have figures but the number of conflicts NATO has been involved in is small compared to national conflicts involving NATO nations (think e.g. Falklands). I don’t think arms dealers’ profits with NATO are large. In addition to campaign use of weapons I have previously posted about the NATO defence planning process whereby NATO analysts (yes I was involved) assess the future threats say 8-15 years out, and which of these might happen simultaneously, and what pool of military forces might be desirable to counter these threats. Then NATO and the NATO Nations enter a negotiation process whereby Nations are encouraged to take a NATO wide view and spend their national defence budgets in line with the overall picture. This may mean for example that instead of every single nation acquiring all possible capabilities that one nation acquires e.g. fewer tanks and artillery pieces and acquires a chemical decontamination capability or a mobile hospital or engineering equipment, or acquires fewer attack aircraft and more Reconnaissance or Transport Aircraft, or acquires fewer Frigates and more Search and Rescue Helicopters or Minesweepers. This can potentially avoid too much of a build-up of attacking capabilities and would certainly reduce arms dealers’ prospects of large sales – IMHO these profits come in contracts with individual nations, particularly in the Middle East.         

Once again thank you for engaging with me and I do hope I have not drowned you in return. We all have a right to our own opinions.

P.S. Now I have added all this feel free to 'unlike' if you wish 
 

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.
You keep on making a category error.

"NATO" doesn't make decisions on policy. Countries do. In light of the fact that they have treaty obligations through NATO, for sure, but they are national decisions.

"NATO" didn't invade Iraq. A coalition led by a particularly evil group of right wing American politicians did.

"NATO" doesn't have a policy goal to "destroy Russia". It can't because it has no sovereign means to do so. Some national leaders may or may not, but that is an entirely different issue.

[danumdon]

https://www.indianpunchline.com/next-100-days-of-ukraine-war/

Mutterings of organised climb down now also fermenting in the US.

Is there now a realisation in the free world that this conflict needs to be brought under control before it starts to create instability worldwide?

Is the visit of the E3 today to Ukraine the commencement of a negotiated settlement that placates Russia.

I would not trust any of the E3 to guarantee that the tea and biscuits would arrive safely when they say.

[Sprotyrover]

I do not believe that the Ukrainian Goverments nurturing and fostering of neo Nazi organisations such as the infamous AZOV brigade has helped their cause in the least. Had Putin merely attacked the Don bass rejoin in February I would have said," get on with it!" I was very disconcerted to see his futile attempt to conquer the entire country. And glad to see it failed. However I have a large group of friends who are from the Balkan states and they see Putin as a hero. Try as I might I can't convince them otherwise.
We have to accept that Russia will now gain control of the Donbass region and start building a structure whereby the remaining 80/90% of the Ukraine is absorbed into NATO.
This will achieve 3 things bring peace and stability to the region, prevent any Further Russian expansion into the Ukraine, prevent far right groups in the Ukraine from making any further military incursions into the Don bass.
I am not happy with this scenario but we need to prevent things from escalating out of our Control.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, you are correct in the ideal and official view of NATO, though as you illustrate, in various incidents it becomes a mix and match of convenience and willingness basically led by the US who have a very clearly expressed aim of world dommination. Refuse to join in with that at your peril.

These countries have trained together under the NATO umbrella, have logistics coordinated through NATO, and then take the NATO flag down when they go into battle, keeping it nice and clean for its overall purpose.

So yes, I use NATO to include what it really does rather than the polished clean purely defensive face it presents, which is quite frankly bullshit. Russia knows this as much as anyone.

[SydneyRover]

Didn't the US stop McArthur from crashing through N Korea into China?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Didn't the US stop McArthur from crashing through N Korea into China?

Like, he was parked?

[SydneyRover]

He had his tyres slashed

[Bristol Red Rover]

This is an interesting channel on Rumble. A very detailed daily analyisis of action using maps and seemingly a good amount of knowledge. I don't know who the guy is but in his analysis he seems balanced.

This is 16th June, there is a 17th June one if you check out the channel. In that there is an interesting list of numbers of foreign "volunteers" including total numbers, killed, left Ukraine and still in Ukraine. I think it's from Russia? See if I can find it and post it. Re Brits, I think it said 100 killed. Quite high death rates from all nations. Strangely doesn't mention captured.
https://rumble.com/v18p8tt-ukraine-russia-military-summary-and-analysis-june-16-2022.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=12

[Bristol Red Rover]

From 24 Nov there were 422 Brits arrived
Killed 100
Left 95
Still there 17 June  226
Accuracy dubious, from Russian ministry, but interesting, and no less reliable than Ukraine offered stats. Not surprising if proportion killed is that high given they'd likely be slung into bad situations (one returner confirmed this), and some will have no training beyond Callof Duty. Brits were 3rd largest contingent behind Poles and Romanians.

Overall, from 24 Nov there were 6956  arrived
Killed 1156
Left  1179
Now there 17 June  3221

[Dutch Uncle]

BST, you are correct in the ideal and official view of NATO, though as you illustrate, in various incidents it becomes a mix and match of convenience and willingness basically led by the US who have a very clearly expressed aim of world dommination. Refuse to join in with that at your peril.

These countries have trained together under the NATO umbrella, have logistics coordinated through NATO, and then take the NATO flag down when they go into battle, keeping it nice and clean for its overall purpose.

So yes, I use NATO to include what it really does rather than the polished clean purely defensive face it presents, which is quite frankly bullshit. Russia knows this as much as anyone.

BRR I think we have some common ground but there are clearly differences in opinion where we will probably have to agree to disagree. I think there are three main areas:


The Global Aims of the US:

 I have absolutely no non-public information to work on, but it is true that I am terrified of the thought of what Republicans might do if re-elected. The minority (max 30% maybe?) of the population that support Trump and his acolytes in complete cult like manner are capable of anything and have made ‘America First’ their top concept for everything (except the inner circles where it is ‘Trump and us first’). I am more sanguine about America’s self-perceived role as global policeman under Democrats who I believe at this time often to some extent have the greater good at heart.   


The extent to which NATO can be used/manipulated by the US (and to a lesser extent by other nations):

It is more than a decade since I retired but I never saw, heard or felt any effects of this. Of course there is always lobbying, for example for a nation’s industry to win NATO Common Funding infrastructure projects, but there are very very tight rules and procedures which I have personally experienced to govern this. Don’t forget NATO does not buy arms, nations do, so most NATO contracts would be IT or construction oriented. If a nation wants to build support for some action that is not mandated by a UN Resolution (NATO’s normal preferred basis, but has not happened in every case) bilateral talks and ad-hoc coalitions are a far far easier way to go.

These countries have trained together under the NATO umbrella, have logistics coordinated through NATO, and then take the NATO flag down when they go into battle, keeping it nice and clean for its overall purpose.

•   Trained Together – absolutely, have adopted standards and procedures that allow interoperability
•   Logistics coordinated by NATO – only in a NATO Operation. Logistics is always a national responsibility. The ability to deconflict a number of nations’ concurrent deployment plans so that e.g. too many ships don’t arrive at a port at the same time is managed by NATO staff with NATO systems. It is possible that the nations can have and use the software if they have trained operators but NATO itself absolutely would not do the coordination for a non NATO approved mission. 
•   The NATO ‘flag’ so to speak would never have been authorized, there should be no pretence that it was a NATO Operation – NATO would be very clear on that - cf first Gulf War.   


The equivalence of NATO/US/The West and Russia in operational tactics that can be used:

Call me an idealist if you will, but the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of highly populated areas and the total destruction carried out by Russia is horrific to everyone and IMHO there is no way any NATO or NATO nation would emulate this. Yes Turkey has a poor Human Rights record and the current Hungary leader has pre 24 February expressed support for Russia, and I am sure Croatia was not squeaky clean in the 1990’s and if we go back further other countries may have occasionally been ‘a bit heavy handed’ (Spain, UK in Northern Ireland,….etc) but in my eyes there is absolutely no equivalence with what the Russians are doing now. And other than North Korea, post Vietnam, and post Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW set up in 1997) who else has used chemical weapons on individuals on other countries soil?       

I agree that a lot of proxy support is happening, but I stick firmly to my opinion that Putin is the aggressor. As I said earlier IMHO Putin is not afraid of an attack on Russian soil by NATO, he is annoyed that newly independent countries have themselves chosen to defend their freedom by joining a defensive alliance and this is thwarting his expansionist plans to restore the Greater Russia. He uses  propaganda to mis-characterise the free choices of independent neighbours as a military threat to his homeland. Unless I have missed something, the UK, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands have not sought military action to restore former colonies that have been given independence. So basically I am disagreeing with your opinion of calling 'BS' on NATO.

Of course the above is all my opinion and may even be out of date, and everyone else is entitled to their own opinion

When does the footie start