Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

Seems the Russians are trying to do the same now

So the US etc instigating regime change was okay?

Have I ever said it was? Neither is the illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Two wrongs don’t  make a right

Agreed.

[ravenrover]

That's easy to explain Dutch. He denied it was a Russian missile until videos of a Russian missile came out (and they have probably recovered bits now) to prove he was wrong. Then when that lie has been debunked - come out with another one. It's what liars do - Johnson has made a career out of it.

Lies... or confusion? I'll give you the beneft of the doubt here and accept your apology. Or maybe you can show where I said that?

I note you weren't able to reply to what I asked you about this incident.

Did it cross your mind he might have been talking about Putin?

[i_ateallthepies]

Invader v invaded - if it were only so simple. I've made my thoughts on that clear already. I also made my thoughts clear on regime change from external interference. Whilst the US and its friends make that a regular part of their worldwide "policing" the shit usually hits the fan, the case of Ukraine being up there with the worst messes.

#billyblinkersbrigade

Invader v invaded it is that simple, none of what is happening now would not be happening if Russia (the invader) hadn’t illegally invaded Ukraine (the invaded). Everything else is secondary to the fact that Russia (the invader) invaded.

#BRRPutinsMouthPiece

What were they supposed to do? Allow Ukraine to join NATO and have there forces sat on their doorstep? US/NATO/EU all share the responsibility for this. It's not a case of goodies v baddies.

So they invade the country which was a substantial distance-piece with the intention of making it part of Russia, thus eliminating the distance they had to Nato countries.  Smart thinking.

[Bristol Red Rover]

What were they supposed to do? Allow Ukraine to join NATO and have there forces sat on their doorstep? US/NATO/EU all share the responsibility for this. It's not a case of goodies v baddies.

So they invade the country which was a substantial distance-piece with the intention of making it part of Russia, thus eliminating the distance they had to Nato countries.  Smart thinking.

It stops NATO advancing east - NATO the "non aggressor". Smart thinking.

[wilts rover]

That's easy to explain Dutch. He denied it was a Russian missile until videos of a Russian missile came out (and they have probably recovered bits now) to prove he was wrong. Then when that lie has been debunked - come out with another one. It's what liars do - Johnson has made a career out of it.

Lies... or confusion? I'll give you the beneft of the doubt here and accept your apology. Or maybe you can show where I said that?

I note you weren't able to reply to what I asked you about this incident.

Eh, you can expect anything you like but if you want to be an apolgist for Putin thats your problem. There is nothing to debate - Putin agreed not to do something that he then did - it shows him for exctly what he is.

Dutch is pondering why PUTIN said what he did about the missile strike. Saying one thing and then coming up with a different story. I gave my theory on that.

Not everything is about you. I will accept my apology on that.

[Bristol Red Rover]

That's easy to explain Dutch. He denied it was a Russian missile until videos of a Russian missile came out (and they have probably recovered bits now) to prove he was wrong. Then when that lie has been debunked - come out with another one. It's what liars do - Johnson has made a career out of it.

Lies... or confusion? I'll give you the beneft of the doubt here and accept your apology. Or maybe you can show where I said that?

I note you weren't able to reply to what I asked you about this incident.

Did it cross your mind he might have been talking about Putin?

Ha! True!

Either way, I don't think thats how it went.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Eh, you can expect anything you like but if you want to be an apolgist for Putin thats your problem. There is nothing to debate - Putin agreed not to do something that he then did - it shows him for exctly what he is.

Dutch is pondering why PUTIN said what he did about the missile strike. Saying one thing and then coming up with a different story. I gave my theory on that.

Not everything is about you. I will accept my apology on that.

Where did Putin say Russia wouldn't attack military targets in Odessa?

[i_ateallthepies]

What were they supposed to do? Allow Ukraine to join NATO and have there forces sat on their doorstep? US/NATO/EU all share the responsibility for this. It's not a case of goodies v baddies.

So they invade the country which was a substantial distance-piece with the intention of making it part of Russia, thus eliminating the distance they had to Nato countries.  Smart thinking.

It stops NATO advancing east - NATO the "non aggressor". Smart thinking.

So, in your world it's ok to invade and kill thousands of innocent, peaceful people on the pretext of preventing their country becoming a member of an organisation whose purpose is to increase global harmony?

[Dutch Uncle]

What were they supposed to do? Allow Ukraine to join NATO and have there forces sat on their doorstep? US/NATO/EU all share the responsibility for this. It's not a case of goodies v baddies.

So they invade the country which was a substantial distance-piece with the intention of making it part of Russia, thus eliminating the distance they had to Nato countries.  Smart thinking.

It stops NATO advancing east - NATO the "non aggressor". Smart thinking.

I think 33+ years of working for NATO has strengthened my resolve to be a peacemaker, the pursuit of peace is what we did every day and was behind every action I took or saw. I will continue in that vein in this thread.

Like a broken record I will keep saying, do not confuse NATO the international body with the individual nations and any actions, overt or covert,  that they might take.

Without NATO the last 70 years would very probably have seen internal wars between what are NATO member nations which have been avoided because they have continually been talking with each other (in some cases within the EU as well). The idea of many nations having the capability of defending together in fully interoperable manner has been a huge deterrent to attack from the east. This is why Putin hates NATO.

On the other hand the fact that NATO Operates only on a unanimous principle has certainly reined in potentially aggressive moves by some NATO member nations.

I am certainly not going to defend the US and to a lesser extent a number of other NATO member nations.

But I will most certainly defend the theory and practice of NATO as a peace oriented alliance.

It is probably just careless language to say things like 'NATO advancing to the East', as if a NATO authorised task force is rolling tanks eastwards. The reality is more like a new member country's air defence and command and control systems become compatible with NATO standards. That new member is not in any better situation to attack anyone (would never be approved), but is certainly better able to defend against attack.

NATO expansion has never been an aim, but NATO is open to nations who wish to join subject to certain conditions mostly concerning democratic systems and economic stability. It is a fact that after 1989 a number of independent nations were established. They are all members of the UN  - as Richard Osman continually says/said on Pointless 'by a country we mean a member of the UN'. They all had the right to decide if they wished to apply to join NATO. NATO was not part of any coup or covert operations in Ukraine.

Again I do not defend actions by some NATO member countries taken outside of the NATO umbrella. But to see NATO accused of some of the aggressive things on here is certainly a personal insult to everything I did for 33+ years, and all the like minded colleagues I had during that time. Again I think it is basically a misunderstanding of NATO and careless language (also used by journalist btw). 

[Bristol Red Rover]

DU,, I think where we disagree is that I see NATO in real terms as being led by the USA.

It seems that US agents were involved in the coup on a few levels. We know the US has a policy of stirring up trouble for Russia with the ai of weakening Russia. Whether or not US government agencies have any direct influence over NATO, thy can certainly use it as a tool in the way they have, and still are doing.

Just on that, whilst NATO in itself is purely for peace through defence, encouraging an expansion to Ukraine has not brought peace. And lets be clear, if the USA has a desire for peace, it is not for peace itself but for preserving US domination and security. It's what empires do. Russia and China are no different. Ukraine is a pawn in this. It's evil.

Whilst you are talking about NATO being defensive, isn't it also about being bigger and more powerful than the others? Ultimately where does all this go? How far east does it go, how far south does it go? As someone said earlier, the clue is in the name - I missed where Ukraine has its Atlantic coast. As a country joins NATO, isn't it by definition protected by the USA, and so is beholdant to the USA, Using Ukraine as the live example, then that country will have less connection with countries outside NATO, or moreso ones seen as a threat to NATO, ie Russia. This is in all practicality more than merely a mutual defense club.

[Bristol Red Rover]

What were they supposed to do? Allow Ukraine to join NATO and have there forces sat on their doorstep? US/NATO/EU all share the responsibility for this. It's not a case of goodies v baddies.

So they invade the country which was a substantial distance-piece with the intention of making it part of Russia, thus eliminating the distance they had to Nato countries.  Smart thinking.

It stops NATO advancing east - NATO the "non aggressor". Smart thinking.

So, in your world it's ok to invade and kill thousands of innocent, peaceful people on the pretext of preventing their country becoming a member of an organisation whose purpose is to increase global harmony?

You miss the point. You suggested it was a stupid move. I'm showing you the reason behind Russia's action.

The US knew this wiould happen so why would it help facilitate a coup and then encourage NATO membership. And EU membership encouraged by the EU countries, as well as likely the USA too. Because it thinks that has more value than the lives of Ukraines? Evidently that is the case.

[Axholme Lion]

DU,, I think where we disagree is that I see NATO in real terms as being led by the USA.

It seems that US agents were involved in the coup on a few levels. We know the US has a policy of stirring up trouble for Russia with the ai of weakening Russia. Whether or not US government agencies have any direct influence over NATO, thy can certainly use it as a tool in the way they have, and still are doing.

Just on that, whilst NATO in itself is purely for peace through defence, encouraging an expansion to Ukraine has not brought peace. And lets be clear, if the USA has a desire for peace, it is not for peace itself but for preserving US domination and security. It's what empires do. Russia and China are no different. Ukraine is a pawn in this. It's evil.

Whilst you are talking about NATO being defensive, isn't it also about being bigger and more powerful than the others? Ultimately where does all this go? How far east does it go, how far south does it go? As someone said earlier, the clue is in the name - I missed where Ukraine has its Atlantic coast. As a country joins NATO, isn't it by definition protected by the USA, and so is beholdant to the USA, Using Ukraine as the live example, then that country will have less connection with countries outside NATO, or moreso ones seen as a threat to NATO, ie Russia. This is in all practicality more than merely a mutual defense club.

Hits nail on head.

[Not Now Kato]

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/ukraine-will-not-back-down/

[wilts rover]

DU,, I think where we disagree is that I see NATO in real terms as being led by the USA.

It seems that US agents were involved in the coup on a few levels. We know the US has a policy of stirring up trouble for Russia with the ai of weakening Russia. Whether or not US government agencies have any direct influence over NATO, thy can certainly use it as a tool in the way they have, and still are doing.

Just on that, whilst NATO in itself is purely for peace through defence, encouraging an expansion to Ukraine has not brought peace. And lets be clear, if the USA has a desire for peace, it is not for peace itself but for preserving US domination and security. It's what empires do. Russia and China are no different. Ukraine is a pawn in this. It's evil.

Whilst you are talking about NATO being defensive, isn't it also about being bigger and more powerful than the others? Ultimately where does all this go? How far east does it go, how far south does it go? As someone said earlier, the clue is in the name - I missed where Ukraine has its Atlantic coast. As a country joins NATO, isn't it by definition protected by the USA, and so is beholdant to the USA, Using Ukraine as the live example, then that country will have less connection with countries outside NATO, or moreso ones seen as a threat to NATO, ie Russia. This is in all practicality more than merely a mutual defense club.

Hits nail on head.

So the UK should withdraw from NATO?

[Dutch Uncle]

DU,, I think where we disagree is that I see NATO in real terms as being led by the USA.

It seems that US agents were involved in the coup on a few levels. We know the US has a policy of stirring up trouble for Russia with the ai of weakening Russia. Whether or not US government agencies have any direct influence over NATO, thy can certainly use it as a tool in the way they have, and still are doing.

Just on that, whilst NATO in itself is purely for peace through defence, encouraging an expansion to Ukraine has not brought peace. And lets be clear, if the USA has a desire for peace, it is not for peace itself but for preserving US domination and security. It's what empires do. Russia and China are no different. Ukraine is a pawn in this. It's evil.

Whilst you are talking about NATO being defensive, isn't it also about being bigger and more powerful than the others? Ultimately where does all this go? How far east does it go, how far south does it go? As someone said earlier, the clue is in the name - I missed where Ukraine has its Atlantic coast. As a country joins NATO, isn't it by definition protected by the USA, and so is beholdant to the USA, Using Ukraine as the live example, then that country will have less connection with countries outside NATO, or moreso ones seen as a threat to NATO, ie Russia. This is in all practicality more than merely a mutual defense club.

BRR – that is the best set out post you have written and I can accept that we can certainly agree to disagree on some things. I think these are our main disagreements:

•   First you think of NATO as being led by the USA, I see it as reining in the USA when it thinks necessary. NATO has no influence how nations act on their own. Two differing viewpoints.

•   You seem to question Ukraine’s right to be an independent country. I don’t.
Like it or not the world order changed after 1989 and a number of new countries were established, including in the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR. They are recognised by the UN and protected by international law. Russia invading Ukraine because it thinks it should belong to Russia is akin to the UK invading Ireland because we don’t accept what happened in 1922. This IMHO is why Putin is the clear aggressor here. 

•   You seem to think NATO is some kind of threat to Russia. My view is it isn’t.
My previous post tried to show that a new member becoming part of NATO does not increase its power to attack, it would not be allowed. No hostilities will begin with an attack from any NATO forces. Russia is under no more threat now than at any other time, and of course the main threat is and has always been long range nuclear missiles. The only thing that has changed is that it is more difficult for an imperialist expansionist Russia to attack some countries, and this is what angers Putin and so he paints it as a threat.

•   You question the significance of the fact that Ukraine does not have an Atlantic coast. That is unfortunately a bit of a red herring if you will excuse the marine pun. As I have posted before, Article V of NATO stipulates Europe and the Atlantic:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
    on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Most NATO nations do not have an Atlantic coast (only US, Canada, Iceland, UK, France, Spain and Portugal do). What constitutes Europe is a more pertinent and debatable question.

From Wiki:
The prevalent definition of Europe as a geographical term has been in use since the mid-19th century. Europe is taken to be bounded by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the east and north-east are usually taken to be the Ural Mountains, the Ural River and the Caspian Sea; to the south-east, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea

This would seem to put Ukraine in Europe, and much of Russia as well. Certainly, prior to this conflict, Ukraine and Russia play in European football competitions and take part in the Eurovision song contest, so popular culture would also seem to accept Ukraine as in Europe.

Finally, and this is meant in a positive spirit, tensions on this thread have been running very high. I think you can understand my own deep personal interest. I think most people can agree that some countries in ‘The West’ have had their own dark operations (which I condemn outright), but no-one would say other than what Putin is doing in Ukraine is wider, grander and more brutal, cruel, and criminally reprehensible than anything else in Europe since WW2. Also as above I certainly feel Putin is the aggressor. I think many people are offended by your equating the extent of both sides’ transgressions. If the point you wish to make is that ’The West’ is not totally innocent of all war crimes in multiple theatres then I think most will agree with you, but until this last post I feel you have been over-egging the point.

Given all the above I will agree to disagree on this and look forward to engaging in football related conversations very soon.   

[BessieBlue]

Well said Dutch

There are two characters on this forum who choose to peddle out the Putin line - for whatever reason. Like the Putin guff I don't believe anything they say and gave up reading their posts on the matter of Ukraine many many weeks ago. I fear your well reasoned posts will fall on deaf ears as far as the two aforementioned characters go and that they will continue to peddle Mr Putin's commentary.

[Axholme Lion]

DU,, I think where we disagree is that I see NATO in real terms as being led by the USA.

It seems that US agents were involved in the coup on a few levels. We know the US has a policy of stirring up trouble for Russia with the ai of weakening Russia. Whether or not US government agencies have any direct influence over NATO, thy can certainly use it as a tool in the way they have, and still are doing.

Just on that, whilst NATO in itself is purely for peace through defence, encouraging an expansion to Ukraine has not brought peace. And lets be clear, if the USA has a desire for peace, it is not for peace itself but for preserving US domination and security. It's what empires do. Russia and China are no different. Ukraine is a pawn in this. It's evil.

Whilst you are talking about NATO being defensive, isn't it also about being bigger and more powerful than the others? Ultimately where does all this go? How far east does it go, how far south does it go? As someone said earlier, the clue is in the name - I missed where Ukraine has its Atlantic coast. As a country joins NATO, isn't it by definition protected by the USA, and so is beholdant to the USA, Using Ukraine as the live example, then that country will have less connection with countries outside NATO, or moreso ones seen as a threat to NATO, ie Russia. This is in all practicality more than merely a mutual defense club.

Hits nail on head.

So the UK should withdraw from NATO?

yes

[BillyStubbsTears]

I think AL has a bit of impotent middle aged man envy of a leader who is prepared to butcher tens of thousands of innocents to show the world how potent he is.

[normal rules]

Uk withdrawing from nato would be like painting a huge target across the country, with London at bullseye.
I see things the other way.
Post Putin, get Russia to join NATO.
Sounds far fetched? They came close in 1954, fearing increased military growth in Germany.
And more recently, Putin himself has alluded to it again.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

[Axholme Lion]

I think AL has a bit of impotent middle aged man envy of a leader who is prepared to butcher tens of thousands of innocents to show the world how potent he is.

Whereas BST sees himself as a great political leader in waiting who will gloriously lead Britain back into the EU, end poverty and bring world peace because he has all the answers on every subject ever raised. I can't think why our leaders don't all tune in to Radio BST to take his knowledgeable advice and all the worlds problems will miraculously solved. He is obviously wasting his time on a fourth division football forum when he should really be sat at Number 10.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL

Nope. No need for your melodrama. It's really simple.

You're a fascist.

I'm not.

Just embrace what you are rather than lash out when folk point it out.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think AL has a bit of impotent middle aged man envy of a leader who is prepared to butcher tens of thousands of innocents to show the world how potent he is.

That kind of response is typical of you BST. You have a lot of good things to say, but when you stoop to this personal insult mode it's embarrassing to watch.

[Axholme Lion]

AL

Nope. No need for your melodrama. It's really simple.

You're a fascist.

I'm not.

Just embrace what you are rather than lash out when folk point it out.

I'm happy with my life and whatever i am. You're one who constantly moans and slags off every decision maker in this country and the world. I find it amusing that you're always on the losing side. Brexit, Conservative Government, Covid, Climate, racism, sexism, blah blah, the list goes on. You must be really one unhappy person. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

I think AL has a bit of impotent middle aged man envy of a leader who is prepared to butcher tens of thousands of innocents to show the world how potent he is.

That kind of response is typical of you BST. You have a lot of good things to say, but when you stoop to this personal insult mode it's embarrassing to watch.

Read what he has written about the destruction of Aleppo and Grozny before you start throwing insults my way. He glories in the destruction that Putin has wrought.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think AL has a bit of impotent middle aged man envy of a leader who is prepared to butcher tens of thousands of innocents to show the world how potent he is.

That kind of response is typical of you BST. You have a lot of good things to say, but when you stoop to this personal insult mode it's embarrassing to watch.

Read what he has written about the destruction of Aleppo and Grozny before you start throwing insults my way. He glories in the destruction that Putin has wrought.

Throwing insults, that's my point.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Uk withdrawing from nato would be like painting a huge target across the country, with London at bullseye.
I see things the other way.
Post Putin, get Russia to join NATO.
Sounds far fetched? They came close in 1954, fearing increased military growth in Germany.
And more recently, Putin himself has alluded to it again.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

I agree, a very difficult solution but would have been the gold solution way way back and even more recently. I think the problem is with powerful US folks, including polititians, needing the us v them to justify their existance. Perverse and twisted, but that's how these people are with their "power steroids". Similar goes for Russia though I suspect there was more willingness with them, but that's gone for some time now.

[Bristol Red Rover]

DU, thanks for your reply, I'll answer it as I can.

On that first point:

•   First you think of NATO as being led by the USA, I see it as reining in the USA when it thinks necessary. NATO has no influence how nations act on their own. Two differing viewpoints.

I think it's both. Whilst NATO is on one level above dictation from individuals, on others it isn't. Eg, the US could withdraw some of it's practical support - currently I think it provides more than others as a proportion of populaton. That would weaken NATO, but would leave some places more vulnerable. That is muscle.

Beyond that, it is clear the US is the major power in NATO and other countries are glad of that massive protection. You don't get owt for nowt. The giving to the US can come in many guises, it's not necessary for that to be within the NATO structure.

But yes, countries won't always fall behind the US, and so some operations the US is wanting are outside NATO. And marginally this may reign in the US particularly in anything around Europe. It doesn't have any effect in all the other regions the US acts in militarily and in regime change.

[Ldr]

AL

Nope. No need for your melodrama. It's really simple.

You're a fascist.

I'm not.

Just embrace what you are rather than lash out when folk point it out.

I'm happy with my life and whatever i am. You're one who constantly moans and slags off every decision maker in this country and the world. I find it amusing that you're always on the losing side. Brexit, Conservative Government, Covid, Climate, racism, sexism, blah blah, the list goes on. You must be really one unhappy person. 

This is his MO AL, if you don't tow his line he will eventually brand you a fascist or racist

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ldr.

The one and only person in here I have called racist wrote racist posts and refused to retract them when confronted with the fact.

The one and only person in here I have called fascist has regularly regaled us with opinions straight out of the fascist play book.

What do you call a feathered animal with wings and a bill that quacks?

[Bristol Red Rover]

DU, staying with the NATO theme, reply two:

  You seem to think NATO is some kind of threat to Russia. My view is it isn’t.
My previous post tried to show that a new member becoming part of NATO does not increase its power to attack, it would not be allowed. No hostilities will begin with an attack from any NATO forces. Russia is under no more threat now than at any other time, and of course the main threat is and has always been long range nuclear missiles. The only thing that has changed is that it is more difficult for an imperialist expansionist Russia to attack some countries, and this is what angers Putin and so he paints it as a threat.

Maybe I haven't been entirely clear here. I believe that Russia genuinely feels NATO expansion to Ukraine is a threat. Whether that materialises to be an actual threat or not I don't know. I hear what you say, but I also understand a Russian perspective.

There is a long long history of wars between Russia and countries to it's west. The one very much still in the minds of many Russians is the Nazi attack. Put together the fact that there are a lot of extreme right wing people in Ukraine especially in government, and then the explicitly nazi sympathetic side of the Maiden demos and then their incorporation into Ukraine military in the well known form of the Azov units, but also in others, and then the horrendous crimes those units committed in the Donbas and there you have a powder keg literally with swastikas on it. To some extent those units were "cleaned up" but not entirely, plus the individuals largely weren't removed from the military but moved within it. Yes, the nazi side of the Ukraine has been used in propaganda by Russia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This, and much more, on it's own is serious, but when NATO moves to effectively protect this, and protect the racist attack on ethnic Russians by its legitamisation of what the Ukraine government was doing and the situation heats up further. Add the very obvious US interventions, including its part in the undemocratic regime change and it reaches crazy proportions.

It all adds up. NATO was part of this in that it's invite to Ukraine stood despite all the above. However I do think this is far more of a US issue than a NATO one, just that NATO is one available tool that was used. The EU and some of it's members played an aggressive game too. Britain also, I have no doubt.

So what happens if Ukraine joing NATO? Do missiles end up on it's soil? That would mean they would be close to Moscow, as close as they coud be in Latvia, but then that is two angles of "threat". Ukraine would change to western weaponry. Ukraine would have military exercises with western nations. US troops woukd be in Ukraine. Whatever the actual limits of any NATO membership, it being purely for defence, you can see how that is not likely to be perceived that way in Russia. NATO, the US etc knows that full well. Strangely many on this forum are unable to stretch to seeing this.

Russia as imperialist. Absolutely, as is China, the US, France, Britain and so many others. The US has been the most active imperialist nation over the last 50 years, a catalogue of interventions both militarily and with secret service regime changes. Wholy undemocratic. Russia is well aware of this, so we have extreme tension when the US in the guise of NATO (here you may disagree!) lands next door to Russia. Do I have to mention the Cuban missile crisis?

I'm not sure that Russia woukd have gone into Ukraine without the regime change and NATO/EU interference. Just my feeling. I may be wrong. But the US most definitely did go into Ukraine as I said above. This was a direct threat to Russia on many levels, or at least that is how Russia will have seen it, and all the western parties knew that. The US in particular has the aim to destabilise Russia, it has deliberately used Ukraine, Ukraine bodies, as pawns to that effect.