I never said they were similar. I said one shouldn't harbor illusions about Ukraine being a sovereign, independent state if it enters the EU or NATO, like none of the member states of those institutions are. — Tzeentch

Then obviously you have an incorrect idea of what is to be a sovereign state. There's an interconnected web of international laws, agreements and international cooperation that limits the sovereignty of the individual state. That simply is the reality in the modern World. And as clearly seen with Brexit, EU has it's advantages just why so many countries have chosen to stick together.

That countries have voluntarily chosen to join these institutions makes it different. It makes all the difference in the World compared to a military invasion an sham referendums.

They are not. When the US says jump, they jump. They have no choice. — Tzeentch

When Bush invaded Iraq, many NATO countries starting with France and Germany didn't participate.

When Obama wanted to attack Syria, his NATO allies said no.

A continuum of US presidents have been disappointed in their allies. Hence NATO members do have a choice just when to jump.

Yet unlike CENTO or SEATO, which don't exist anymore, NATO continues. It exists because it member states want it to exist. For starters, NATO has kept the countries from having wars between them. Hence it's a genuine security system for Europe. Otherwise it would have gone the way as those former organizations I mentioned. The US could easily make bipartisan defense treaties with European countries, just like it now does in Asia.

Though to be expected I guess, I'd find the re-culturation/indoctrination attempts a bit ... embarrassing when exposed. — jorndoe

But it's telling about the whole effort. A war that came as a surprise to many in the administration. A mobilization that has mobilized more young men to leave Russia than were put into the army to be stop-gap cannon fodder. A war that sometimes resembles WW1 fought with drones.

It's more doubtful what they can effectively do, though.
What could they do?
(Limit Putin's vacation spots some?) — jorndoe

Just keep supporting Ukraine as they did in spring. Keep on track, stay focused.

It doesn't really matter, since if the new status quo doesn't in some way satisfy the Russians, it's going to lead to war again sooner or later. — Tzeentch

The purpose of the Ukrainian resistance is precisely to tell the Russians to mind their own busines. I trust it will work. Once they're finished losing this war, the Russians will be become war-adverse for at least a generation. Once bitten twice shy.

The only superiority Russia has over Ukraine is now nuclear. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia is losing its non-war against Ukraine, which is precisely why they try to score against Ukrainian civilians right now, and why they and their supporters wank on nukes so much: it's a form of porn, designed to give back a sense of power to the impotent.

So Ukraine needs not fear a future conventional war -- which they could well win. the only question, going forward, is: What Ukrainian behavior could possibly lead Russia to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine? I.e. which behavior should Ukraine avoid in order to avoid getting nuked by Russia?

For this reason, I predict Ukraine will join the EU but not NATO. Russia cannot possibly use nukes just to stop a nation from freely joining a trade group like the EU, but moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response.

It's a fairly simple language and has many root words in common with English, because the last invasion of the French was never repelled. — unenlightened

Indeed, an estimated 41% of common, everyday English words are borrowed from old French, and often without much alteration in the word's writing. Table --> table; vase --> vase; fleur --> flower, etc. The other main source for English vocabulary is old German dialects, accounting for 38% of words in common use if memory serves, so these two sources are roughly on a par, with French words predominating only slightly.

As I always say, this is one big reason why English is such a powerful language: it comes not from one language that evolved overtime, but from two languages that merged in the 12th century after William's conquest.

That countries have voluntarily chosen to join these institutions makes it different. — ssu

It exactly doesn't make it different. Countries that join NATO or the EU voluntarily give up a great deal of sovereignty, and they give up even more by neglecting their defense, thus making themselves completely dependent on the USA.

When Bush invaded Iraq, many NATO countries starting with France and Germany didn't participate.

When Obama wanted to attack Syria, his NATO allies said no. — ssu

Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria all featured a great deal of NATO participation. Those conflicts weren't remotely related to the NATO mission statement, nor did many of these countries have any type of stake in those conflicts. That should tell you enough about the considerable sway the Americans have.

NATO countries that do not participate in America's wars, even if those wars aren't related to their own defensive situation, get no say in what happens within NATO. However, by participating in America's wars NATO countries can buy their influence.

For this reason, I predict Ukraine will join the EU but not NATO. Russia cannot possibly use nukes just to stop a nation from freely joining a trade group like the EU, but moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response. — Olivier5

I don't agree with that assessment. Russian doctrine is clear, attacks on the motherland will illicit a nuclear response. This wouldn't qualify. The risk of Ukraine joining NATO was what caused the current war but funny how for 400 pages you and others argued against that being the reason for the war and now all of a sudden it would be grounds for a nuclear attack?

The purpose of the Ukrainian resistance is precisely to tell the Russians to mind their own busines. — Olivier5

How's that been working out?

So far so good.

The risk of Ukraine joining NATO was what caused the current war but funny how for 400 pages you and others argued against that being the reason for the war and now all of a sudden it would be grounds for a nuclear attack? — Benkei

That's not what I am saying.

You have a strange way of expressing yourself if you didn't just say "[Ukrainian] moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response."

Why would it when according to you those moves weren't a reason for the war to begin with? Why would it all of a sudden illicit a reaction even worse than conventional war if it wasn't the reason for war in the first place?

Why would it all of a sudden illicit a reaction even worse than conventional war if it wasn't the reason for war in the first place? — Benkei

It wasn't the reason for this war because Ukraine had zero chance of joining NATO before Feb 2022. IF they had been in a process of joining, then one might surmise otherwise. But as it happened, Putin invaded for another reason.

What i am saying is this: after this war, Ukraine will probably seek to join both the EU and NATO. I further predict that their EU accession bid will be acceptable to both the EU and Russia. However, I am afraid the current Russian regime will not tolerate Ukraine joining NATO, and in any case will oppose it aggressively. Much more than a EU accession bid.

Among the leverage left to them, their conventional forces are already well diminished and will be more so at the end of the war. (assuming a Ukrainian victory, evidently) Therefore, their only leverage will be the mass of nuclear weapons they have. They might not detonate any, but they will threaten it, and that may be enough to deter or derail a NATO bid.

Such a threat is not readily available in the case of the EU, which is a trade group, not a military alliance. Putin cannot credibly threaten to nuke Ukraine if it joins the EU. But in case of NATO he can.

It wasn't the reason for this war because Ukraine had zero chance of joining NATO before Feb 2022. — Olivier5

Zero chance?

The US and NATO have been holding joint military exercises almost every year with the Ukrainian military. They were a NATO/US ally in all but name.

- 2015, Fearless Guardian
- 2017, Rapid Trident
- 2018, Sea Breeze
- 2018, Clear Sky
- 2019, Rapid Trident
- 2020, Rapid Trident
- 2021, Rapid Trident

Name me one other country that the US military has joint military exercises with every year, that is not a US ally.

They were a NATO/US ally in all but name. — Tzeentch

Yes, and that will continue. Maybe I am wrong and Ukraine will manage to officially join NATO. I'm just saying that it will be harder than joining the EU. If they fail to join NATO, they can always remain "a US ally in all but name".

So...

they can always remain "a US ally in all but name". — Olivier5

...but...

moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response. — Olivier5

Russia sure are touchy about names.

Putin offers yet another reason for annexing Ukrainian territories (not a new one though):

I think it should be obvious to all those present here why we supported and eventually agreed to the recognition and admission of Donetsk, Luhansk, and then two more territories into the Russian Federation. Look at these young women. How does [meeting participant] Fedorova, who lives in the Lugansk Republic, differ from other Fedorovs [common Russian surname] somewhere in Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg or Moscow? Nothing. These are our people. — Putin

why they and their supporters wank on nukes so much: it's a form of porn, designed to give back a sense of power to the impotent. — Olivier5

In my view the Russians successfully used their nukes to provide them an umbrella to conduct their invasion relatively uncontested. The current arrangement where NATO supplies arms and intelligence but no planes and no direct involvement is the result of a tacit "negotiation". Russian nukes, which they emphasized with thinly veiled threats, were perhaps their most important bargaining chip in this "negotiation", and bought them somewhat favorable terms.

Russia sure are touchy about names. — Isaac

This "ally in all but name" sure didn't seem to buy Ukraine much security in the end, whereas with NATO membership Russia would lose the privilege of levelling the country when they please.

I thought denazification was the reason.

The risk of Ukraine joining NATO was what caused the current war — Benkei

Has anyone explained how, with Russia's ridiculously overpowered nuclear arsenal, Ukraine in NATO posed even the slightest threat to Russia? In the real world their mere threat has deterred NATO even defending their "ally in all but name", in their own damn country.

Russia sure are touchy about names. — Isaac

What's in a name? did Juliet ask. Note my use of the scare quotes, which in this case implies ironic distance. As @hypericin picked up: "This "ally in all but name" sure didn't seem to buy Ukraine much security". Such an ally can be dropped in a New York minute, if supporting it becomes inconvenient, and it certainly does not oblige the US to spill American blood to defend it.

:up:

I thought denazification was the reason. — RogueAI

If you're making shit up anyway you may as well throw as much as you can against the wall and hope some of it sticks with some of the people.

:up:

National state TV, Russia

Here is what one man wrote [to] me, someone by the name of Victor Rozumovsky: “Maybe it’s time to stop presenting lies as the truth. Stop deceiving people. Rational thinking people no longer believe any of this.” You know what Victor? If you are in Russia, we are going to find you. We will find out everything about you. You won’t know a moment’s peace. — Vladimir Solovyov

:D

NATO renews membership vow to Ukraine, pledges arms and aid
^{— Stephen McGrath, Lorne Cook, Ellen Knickmeyer · AP News · Nov 29, 2022}

NATO's door is open. Russia does not have a veto. — Stoltenberg

If, as Stoltenberg hinted, NATO supplies the Kyiv fanatics with Patriot complexes along with NATO personnel, they will immediately become a legitimate target of our armed forces. I hope the Atlantic impotents understand this. — Medvedev

Zelenskiy Invites Musk to Visit Ukraine in Response to His Talk of Peace Deal
^{— Daniel Flatley · Bloomberg · Nov 30, 2022}

Putin + team requires/demands (Nov 11, 2022) ≈

^{• legal guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO, signed ✓ and set in stone in Ukraine's constitution
• that Ukraine (the world?) recognize independence of Donetsk + Luhansk
• that Ukraine (the world?) recognize Crimea as part of Russia
• (Ukrainian surrender, demilitarization, deNazification has been mentioned a few times)
• (Moscow is not to be attacked :grin:)}

The former could likely be worked out without that much difficulty if Russia was to give a similar guarantee to leave Ukraine alone, what NATO membership would help with in the first place. The two latter more or less constitute a non-licet land grab (besides, Donetsk + Luhansk wouldn't be independent but more or less under Moscow control, a signature move of theirs).

Kyiv requires/demands (Nov 23, 2022) ≈

^{• apart from neutrality / some sort of UN oversight perhaps, Ukraine otherwise intact, free, sovereign, self-governing
• Russian military personnel in Ukraine to go home, and no Russian insurgency or other interference
• Ukrainians taken to Russia to be recorded and (allowed) to return home, first and foremost children and prisoners
• guarantees to be signed ✓ for all to see
• (compensation for destruction or similar has come up)}

Other items that have come up ≈

^{• investigation into war crimes, prosecution of war criminals
• (has Kherson + Zaporizhia been added to Donetsk + Luhansk?)}

Some requirements/demands are incompatible. Others could be pursued now. As far as I can tell, all of the items would have to be brought to the table, whether they'll be rejected, considered, approved or not. Otherwise it's not really genuine.

Hypothesis (just to write it out explicitly):

Putin + team want Crimea, at least. A secured Donbas would sort of help with connecting Russia and Crimea (Kerch is a bit skimpy). All of Ukraine would be :up:, and would connect Russia and Transnistria. Farms, resources, ..., go beyond geo/military gain. Stated/official reasons, rhetoric, various efforts, propaganda, etc, are means to that end.

Kyiv wants the invaders to leave and not come back. That includes the interference/insurgence in Donbas. (And quit the destruction.)

↑ consistent with observations, not overly complex/speculative, plausible

Oleksiy Danilov opines:

Ukraine calls for «destruction» of Russia to prevent it from pursuing its colonial aims
^{— Daniel Stewart · News360 · Dec 1, 2022}

Not really helping. (Regardless of how in/accurate it is.) It'll just give reason to fear, and fuel the zealots. The fact remains that Putin's Russia invaded, is waging war, destroying, etc.

These are our people — Putin

Except for the "Nazis" and those that don't want to be subjects... :D (the evil uncle that nieces and nephews stay away from comes to mind)

Putin Ally Blames Crisis on Rise of Black U.S. Music Stars He Calls ‘Descendants of African American Slaves’
^{— Allison Quinn · The Daily Beast · Dec 1, 2022}

It's been explained regularly on this thread and I have no appetite rehashing the same discussion. Point is that it's ridiculous to expect a nuclear escalation if they'd join and maintain it's not a reason for this war. It's the regular arguments for convenience where every fact is interpreted to suit preconceived conclusions. The lack of analysis here is simply embarrassing and when it's pointed out the thread rapidly deteriorates into snark.