whYNOT

Strongly on board as I am with a self-interested, non-altruist/interventionist USA for its good and for other countries, the anti-war "isolationists" are flat-out wrong, ultimately, self-sacrificial. Present situation, it is nowhere at any time a matter of committing US forces to that arena, just a single mission by a B-52 at little risk after the complete air dominance that the Israelis have achieved. Ah, but what will the regime do in reprisal? Won't it attack the American bases? If it does, it does, too much second-guessing looks weak, and is. But then the aerial retaliation on Iran by the two nations will be massive, and despite the bold rhetoric they know this, ending permanently Iran's military threat to the region and abroad, again without committing American ground troops. But I would prefer that Israel finished their self-defensive war as they began it, alone, incredibly seeing off all its enemies; but it lacks the ordinance for that crucial underground installation. (I am sick and tired of hearing "Israel/Jews are [again] 'dragging us' into war"... since when?) Watching the CNN wrangle the issue must lend morale to Tehran and other foes of the west, seeing the isolationists' lack of will and resolve to defend the USA's own security (what do isolationists believe Iran could intend - or would menace - with its nuclear weapons and ICBM programs?) nor will they avert the spreading turmoil of an Iran-dominant Middle East. "The USA is becoming a paper tiger". The skeptics, one must take the isolationists for, seem not to reason and anticipate much worse down the line by not taking action now. Perceptions count with people. "America First" has to maintain its image of permanent deterrence with occasional, judicious actions. A powerful and free nation will draw enemies, and must reserve the right to pre-emptively surprise-strike a country - all without "boots on the ground", as modern warfare allows, or conquest and occupation, lengthy (and self-sacrificial) "entanglements" - negating too, the also altruistic "warhawks" on the other side of this false alternative. Values kept/gained at what cost? Wars come down to which "hill" is one prepared to fight for and possibly sometimes die on.

I say this to counter fresh condemnations of Israel in other sites. This Iran war began Oct 7; despite a common, propagandized notionality that Hamas and Hezbolla (their almost simultaneous assaults, tellingly quite overlooked by media, in their focused 'concern for Gaza'), and the Houthis - and Tehran - were all disconnected or independent actors - in "solidarity" with Gaza. I.e. An unorchestrated "resistance" movement. But I'd claim that if removed from the equation Iran's nuclear ambitions, its defaults and delays and the argument around Iranian intentions with nukes -- and the above "proxy" attacks largely directed and backed by Tehran would alone have provided ample just cause for Israel's offensive strikes at Iran. Re-introduce that danger and their casus belli against "the principal" nation is far exceeded. A good discussion on the legalities of war.

Commonality: The "strong" who are (often) "the victims".

The Great Untouchable: "Islamaphobia". Detectable too, the playing down by western media of the Islamicist terror atrocity in Kashmir, conducted by unaffiliated "militants", wouldja believe. I sensed there was a concerted drive to squash any (obvious) parallels people made between Oct 7 and this later one. I half expected there to follow riotous assemblies in the West against--India and the Hindus, the true victims, who else? But never against Pakistan and its Islamist elements.

The "strong" are the good, least of all because they have physical prowess, but primarily possess the qualities and virtues, free will, and the freedom of action which make them "strong" -- knowing why, and being able to, morally defend themselves. Basic O'ism. Yet, and it is "just weird", I noticed that a few here immediately presumed upon Israel's military strength as being its sole advantage, "might makes right" - a show of the concretist mentality. I was reminded, since this epidemic of adoring the "weak" comes up in this good discussion with Melanie Phillips, the English writer.

Idiotic as usual. This war (at the simple level) is regional between Russia and Ukraine, the governments of which were far from free, innocent, nor lacking internal corruptions. As such, the two states are approximately value-equivalent. Taking the side of one against the other, to promote their escalating conflict was arbitrary and amoral. Morally, the war should have been stopped. (But for the West's "vested interests" in Ukraine and of "weakening Russia" to make it more pliable) The "principle" of Israel's self-defense is one of life-value against death-"value" and must be fought to the end. But, fascinating, view the moral reversal, of how Israel has been hampered by the combined West - while Ukraine was urged to fight on "until the last Ukrainian", today still by the militant British and French govts. You spout "a general principle". Ha. Practice it yourselves.

These analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany - and "appeasement" - context dropped, fearmongering. In this world, there can't be imperialist dominance through conventional force and invasion any longer. Nuclear weapons ended that. Indoctrinated by the western narrative, it's impossible to conceive that Putin's invasion, by a minor military force, or "SMO" -was, to them, self-defensive: pre-emptive. As if, Poland in the 1930's had been taken over ideologically and militarily by, say, the Soviet Communists, who'd steadily built and armed a formidable Polish army which the Germans, understandably, perceived to be threatening. Along with an overthrow of regimes, and then a civil war by Warsaw against its ethnic Germanic- Poles that was brewing problems on the common border. Then Germany began a pre-emptive counter-offensive. A rational Churchillian-like figure from a neutral country could have told them to cut it out: "Poland, don't threaten Germany -- cease the covert aggression. Germany, stand own. Enter negotiations, and begin demilitarization, forthwith". That's a more realistic contemporary analogy. Lebensraum or natural resources, Russia has plenty of. Instead, back to the actual, Churchill *identified* accurately what Nazi Germany was up to. I.e. European domination. I have to keep repeating, this was a propagandized, badly-identified "goal" not remotely possible nor desirable by the RF. You'd do well not to assume Russians are insane, stupid, and suicidal. As did the West, at their and Ukraine's cost.

Begin with a wrongful premise, a faulty identification, and nothing afterwards goes right. (Garbage in --): "The more widespread and familiar view in the West, particularly in the United States, is that Russia is and has always been an expansionist state, and its current president, Vladimir Putin, is the embodiment of that essential Russian ambition: to build a new Russian empire. “This was … always about naked aggression, about Putin’s desire for empire by any means necessary,” President Joe Biden said on Feb. 24, 2022". --- Any early and urgent diplomatic initiative and publicized Peace Summit ~might~ have put on world display Putin's NON-ambitions (certainly, non-capacity) "for empire", and ~might~ have settled the Donbas (if not Crimea) in Ukraine and ~might~ have ended a war, for a few basic concessions, in which Ukraine gained nothing and lost vast amounts more. The Kremlin and Putin and Kyiv and NATO ~might~ have stuck to the terms agreed and built peace. Now we will never know. It could seem that keeping the public in the West in the dark about Putin's actual, quite modest, security intention, was the reason talks were not tried. "Weakening Russia", as was often repeated, could seem to have been a more important aim for some with "a vested interest" in the region, than in Ukraine's well-being.

Quote: "On 14 June 2024 Russian President Putin claimed that "Russian troops were near Kyiv in March 2022", but "There was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city; it was a coercive operation to establish peace."" --- You can't imagine what the real thing, blanket aerial bombardment from aircraft and non-stop ground shelling into a city solidly 24h/d and many weeks - would look like. Above report, shelling and missile fire was sporadic, light, aimed at installations, avoided civilians. Altogether nothing like - a "blitz" to mass-murder or cow 3m Kyivites into submission, before making a necessarily massive ground assault. This version of events played into the Western affinity for a glorious resistance tale and raised Ukraine morale. It was indeed - a *coercive* operation to make the Ukrainian leaders parley. I've said several times, by this foray on Kyiv, Putin bullied Zel into meeting when diplomatic channels weren't getting results, and that it "almost worked -- but for cynical outside meddling". For Ukraine's sponsors, the war had to be allowed to continue... The neatly-arranged 'Bucha atrocities' - fortuitously "discovered", after the Russian withdrawal, and actor-Zelensky pictured grimly conducting the press around dead bodies - finally blocked any chance of ending hostilities. Fact: In Istanbul earlier the two parties had been privately drafting a mutual security plan. You were not informed that, were you? Right up to today information of the early truce and concession attempts at peace was kept mostly under wraps.

RAF: "The Russian military's initial invasion force in Ukraine, deployed in February 2022, was estimated to be between 169,000 and 190,000 troops. This initial force has been significantly increased since the beginning of the conflict. As of June 2024, Al Jazeera reported that Russia had approximately 700,000 troops actively involved in the fighting in Ukraine",. Initial Invasion Force: Estimate: 169,000 - 190,000 troops UAF: "In July 2022, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated that the Armed Forces had an active strength of 700,000; Reznikov also mentioned that with the Border Guard, National Guard, and police added, the total comes to around one million". ---- "Taking the capital of a country" - Kyiv - instantly turns to fake news, seeing the respective strengths. Russians more than 1 : 3 outnumbered, (190:700) when any military cadet can tell you an invading army needs to outnumber defenders 3 : 1. Only with that right superiority, a large city would still need sustained heavy bombing first. Before sending in tanks and infantry. And the ex-Soviets could write the book on the difficulty of taking a city, like their experience of Vienna and of the Wehrmacht with Stalingrad in ww2. All you gullibles accepted the going alarmist propaganda : a "full-scale invasion". New to you, Putin was talking with Zelensky in Istanbul at the same time, while his relatively small force feinted at Kyiv. It was withdrawn to show good faith, reportedly - the force taking some punishment from the UAF. Idiot politicians like Boris and Biden promoted their retreat as a victory: "Don't negotiate, you can beat Russia!" As for going on from Kyiv to defeat west Ukraine, then conquer Poland, then the Baltics, then ... comes from too many war movies, people have little idea of the reality of large-scale modern warfare. So make deductions. Ask yourself - why did such a - initially - minimal number of Russian troops 'invade' Ukraine - with zero chance of conquering and occupying it?

Crap. Noted, you favor your supporters in reporting bad words. I expect evasiveness from you, goes with low integrity.

Of what relevance, presently, is the promise (/"promise"), legally-binding/verbal, or not, made/not made by NATO about 30 years ago? That serves as an interesting historical backdrop and the political/diplomatic thinking, and characters of the period, little more. It lost interest for me many months back. NATO shills are now trying to revise Putin's (NOT Ukraine) demands, to save its damaged reputation. To "show" that Putin had an "imperialist" agenda, one he "excused" and rationalized as driven by "NATO expansionism". Russia was therefore intent on taking back the ex-Warsaw Pact nations "lost" to NATO. Makes sense; to anyone who is irrational or insane. In this narrative, naturally, absolutely *nothing* was to be spared and sacrificed to stop Putin and Russia's foul aims. Neither lives - nor aid. (Of course they all were aware that Putin was ready for negotiations from the start, which blows their imperialist claims out of the water - but having talks did not fit their compromised "agenda" and objectives). They must accept a large share of the blame for the terrible war. In reality, this war revolves around NATO's "expansion" and inclusion of - exclusively... Ukraine (and Georgia) No more red herrings and wasting time, your turn to answer: do you think Putin has been sincere regarding Russia's fears of Ukraine's accession? Yes/no?

Of course, once he invaded, Putin set about "acquiring territory"! Not ever - the entire Ukraine. Not with that small Russian force. The operation limited to the eastern, Russian-Ukrainian oblasts, and only those that wished and wish by earlier (and future?) referenda, to be incorporated into the RF following their ill-treatment by Kyiv. Tactically, I'm guessing, Russia might advance further west to create a buffer zone, but are not so stupid as to annex territory with populations loyal to Kyiv Kyiv/the West had their opportunities to settle the long civil war by implementing the agreed (Minsk) concessions but, sadly, wouldn't. Enter Russia.

Just answer the question. The "promise" made/not made (and believed, or not believed) is hardly pertinent. The concerns which Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and particularly Putin might have had and presently have - is. Why so? You well know NATO is trying recently to deflect, cover up and justify its failures, with many such PR statements - "Putin is lying about Russian fears of NATO expansion; that was his fabricated excuse to invade and conquer Ukraine". -the issue NATO disingenuously ducks - beside other issues: the UAF/NATO military build-up, the Kyiv Gvt's assisted overthrow, the unending civil war, etc. - is the fact that Putin's warnings about the "expansion" was specifically- Not Ukraine! (The NATO "chorus" themselves even point to his seeming unconcern re. other bordering countries entering NATO, for "proof" he did not care about "expansion".) Maybe so. But "Not Ukraine!"

Small reminder, my position remains 1. *all* parties, officials and media have been and are culpable of evasions of reality 2. this devastating war would have been averted/stopped very early through diplomacy and concessions. Or: ignore, dismiss, presume, misidentify - and misevaluate - and pay the price. Couple of refreshing perspectives- https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-nato-expansion-explains-russias-actions-in-ukraine/&ved=2ahUKEwjx493Ay_eMAxU8QEEAHfrpIAAQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0s5znNMbZhkRDeEZ7IHIcv "Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, a chorus of government officials, academics, commentators, and retired bureaucrats and diplomats has dismissed all links between the crisis and the decades-long NATO expansion. Moscow’s aggression, we are told, is all about Vladimir Putin’s imperial impulse—his desire to recreate the Russian empire". https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999&ved=2ahUKEwjx493Ay_eMAxU8QEEAHfrpIAAQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3eJih58ykmTxMA-uQUKLdv "The more widespread and familiar view in the West, particularly in the United States, is that Russia is and has always been an expansionist state, and its current president, Vladimir Putin, is the embodiment of that essential Russian ambition: to build a new Russian empire. “This was … always about naked aggression, about Putin’s desire for empire by any means necessary,” President Joe Biden said on Feb. 24, 2022".