↪neomac
I keep giving you chances to prove you can converse like an adult, and you keep disappointing me. — Tzeentch

Meaning? What is bothering you exactly?

Pro-Russians: "And what about Vietnam war and the Hyper-imperialist Great Satan? And what about Vietnam importing more 70% weapons from Russia?"
Vietnam: "who gives a shit?".
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/10/fact-sheet-president-joseph-r-biden-and-general-secretary-nguyen-phu-trong-announce-the-u-s-vietnam-comprehensive-strategic-partnership/

Just because Ukraine has Nazi paramilitaries and just because it's impossible to take photos of Ukrainian soldiers without capturing Nazi insignia and just because Ukrainian Nazis get applauded in parliament doesn't mean we're on the side of the Nazis, you crazy Russian shill. — Johnstone

Just because Ukraine has a Jewish president and just because it's impossible to take photos of Ukrainian Jews fighting the so nazi Ukrainian government[1] and just because Israel welcomes Azov Battalion's representatives obivously means we're on the side of the Nazis, you infallible Russian propaganda. — WhoTheFuckIsJohnstoneAnyways

[1]
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/jewish-ukraine-fights-nazi-russia-zelensky
https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-zelensky-adviser-40-jewish-heroes-fighting-in-mariupol-steel-plant/

I agree with the first link on the fact that Ukraine's identity is messy.

Vyacheslav Volodin dishes out ultimatum:

"Ukraine will accept Moscow's conditions or cease to exist." The Kremlin sends threats ^{(google translate)
— Mikołaj Pietraszewski · Wiadomości Radio ZET · Sep 25, 2023}

I don't think there's much new about this, though.

I agree with the first link on the fact that Ukraine's identity is messy. — javi2541997

And likely the reason why apparently the Ukrainians prefer to be called "Nazis" instead of "Russians", go figure.

Yes, I can figure it out somehow. Well, for most ordinary people, they are easily confused with Russians because they share the same pillars of each nation: culture, language (Cyrillic) and religion (Orthodox church). So, the constant efforts of Zelensky to not be compared to the Russian spectrum is, more or less, vane.

: culture, language (Cyrillic) and religion (Orthodox church) — javi2541997

And yet American fought against the British empire for their independence, despite "the same pillars of each nation".

So, the constant efforts of Zelensky to not be compared to the Russian spectrum is, more or less, vane. — javi2541997

Sure, Zelensky has definitely failed with you. So disappointing. Now I'm gonna pick his ears next time I see him.

And yet American fought against the British empire for their independence, despite "the same pillars of each nation". — neomac

True, but both nations agree on the fact that they are in the Western world, and share the same language and interests. The rebellion of the USA against the UK was a taxation or public administration problem rather than a cultural war.

Sure, Zelensky has definitely failed with you. So disappointing. Now I'm gonna pick his ears next time I see him. — neomac

Nah, we all are already busy paying the high costs and inflation, while our public budget is feeding them. :roll:

True, but both nations agree on the fact that they are in the Western world, and share the same language and interests. The rebellion of the USA against the UK was a taxation or public administration problem rather than a cultural war. — javi2541997

It was cultural and identitarian too. Read Paine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
And then the US allied with the British archenemy, the French with whom they shared at least republican spirit.

Nah, we all are already busy paying the high costs and inflation, while our public budget is feeding them. :roll: — javi2541997

I hear you, bro. I'd prefer me, you and our entire families to be bombed, raped and tortured by the Russians than paying the high costs of inflation , while our public budget is feeding them. :roll:

I'd prefer me, you and our entire families to be bombed, raped and tortured by the Russians — neomac

Ask to yourself: Are the families of the Western world responsible?

Secondly, why don't we care about the rest of the world as well as we do about Ukraine? What about Syria? Afghanistan? Niger? Libya and Morocco natural disasters? Do these ring a bell to you?

Thirdly, what about Russian citizens? They are not guilty of having Putin as President running their country. You are speaking about deaths, injuries and rapes. But these are suffered by the people of the other "side" too, but we do not care because our politicians are hypocritical. In this stupid war, it seems that there is only one victim and the rest "deserve" to be dead and isolated economically from the rest of the world. What a terrible mistake to not allow Russia to express themselves better. The aggression of Putin is not justified, as well as should not be disrespect for everything related to Russia either.

It was cultural and identitarian too. — neomac

Interesting. You can fight for your American identity and cultural values, but hey! We do not allow Russians to defend their Cyrillic heritage! Russians bad and Putin a dictator! :roll:

The rebellion of the USA against the UK was a taxation or public administration problem rather than a cultural war. — javi2541997

As the expression goes: "Taxation without Representation."
It was also a about "lawyers, guns, and money." Also known as the British Mercantile economy:

Britain’s desire to maintain their mercantile economic system also encouraged the creation of the Proclamation Line. Within the British mercantile world, colonies were to produce raw materials for export to the mother country, where they would be produced into manufactured goods and sold to consumers within the empire. To keep her wealth internalized, Great Britain enacted a number of regulations throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as the Navigation Acts, prohibiting her colonies from trading with foreign markets. Following the French and Indian War, Britain feared that westward expansion would lead to a growth in commercial agriculture, allowing farmers to profit by smuggling excess crops to external Atlantic markets. Instead, the government sought to protect mercantilism by encouraging colonial growth to the north and south in an effort to populate the newly acquired provinces of Quebec, East Florida, and West Florida. This would not only limit the establishment of commercially profitable farms on newly acquired western lands, but would also keep settlers within close range of Britain’s economic and political influence. Consequently, many colonials of varying socioeconomic backgrounds viewed the Proclamation Line and its restrictions as repressive measures put in place by the Crown to secure increased control over affairs in their North American colonies. — Jennifer Monroe McCutchen

A year and a half into the US-provoked war*, and they’re fighting hard with Ukrainian lives to keep the war going. It’s been a windfall for defense contractors, so it’s all good politically.

Interesting to watch Republicans claiming they’re against funding…see how long that lasts.

Weren’t you the one claiming that Putin was an imperialist trying to take over the world a while back? Right…

An embarrassing moment for Trudeau and the Canadian government. Trudeau, Zelensky, and the Ministers of parliament gave a standing ovation to a Ukrainian WW2 veteran in the House of Commons. It turns out he was an actual Nazi, fought for the SS in Ukraine and everything. You can’t make this stuff up.

Yeah, it was pathetic. What I cannot understand is the big efforts of some politicians and @neomac to deny Ukraine's Nazi past - or even present - arguing that Putin is just a psychopath. Sooner or later, the truth emerges, and we can see how Ukraine really is. But, meanwhile, the funding is still going up in a country where their identity is blurred, and they don't even know what their (real) expectations are in the long term.

My sense is that Washington's intention was to use Ukraine as a means to bind Russia in a 'forever war' while simultaneously souring Russia's relations with Europe, which in turn would benefit the US.

The reason I say this is because there are various things within Washington's behavior that simply don't make sense otherwise.

Why would they course for war for 20 years straight while refusing any meaningful dialogue with Russia? To me that implies they intentionally sought to start a conflict.

Why would they take this course, while simultaneously being unwilling to commit to a victory? There's not analyst in the world that gave Ukraine any chance of victory prior to this war. To me that implies that a military victory was never Washington's objective in the first place.

While the war is ongoing, why would they boycot a peace deal and also use diplomatic negotiations as a tool to mislead the Russians, intentionally souring the little trust that may have been there and making negotiations impossible for the foreseeable future? To me that implies Washington is not interested in a diplomatic solution to this war, and wishes for it to continue for as long as possible.

I fully agree with you.

On the other hand, just for an addendum to your comment, I miss more efforts by European institutions to let Russia be part of those. I am not asking for a full membership because I understand that Russia needs deep changes in its public administration and system, as an overall. But, again, I think that Frankfort (or Paris, depending on the context) should have made more efforts towards Russia and tried to take a more neutral position, as much as Switzerland has always done.

It would be a great act of hypocrisy of Western institutions if we let Ukraine be part of everything unconditionally. In this sense, I perceive that Ukraine is playing two sides: the U.S. and the European Union. When Zelensky is not able to get funding to keep fighting or has some disagreement with an EU state (such as Poland), he quickly goes to Washington; and if Republicans will the 2024 elections, he will ask for some integration in the EU. I cannot trust the behaviour of a nation like this one, and Zelensky is demanding more than Ukraine should get in real circumstances.

I miss more efforts by European institutions to let Russia be part of those. I am not asking for a full membership because I understand that Russia needs deep changes in its public administration and system, as an overall. But, again, I think that Frankfort (or Paris, depending on the context) should have made more efforts towards Russia and tried to take a more neutral position, as much as Switzerland has always done. — javi2541997

I don't think Russia would want to be part of the EU or NATO, even though such options have been explored in the past, mainly because it would entail ceding some sovereignty to Brussels (or Washington in the case of NATO).

However, economic ties had been strengthened in the period before the 2014 (and even after). Perhaps Washington felt the Russians and Europeans were in fact cozying up to each other a little too much, to such an extent that the Europeans could no longer be counted on to pick the American side if a conflict were to break out between say, the United States, China and Russia.

In this sense, I perceive that Ukraine is playing two sides: the U.S. and the European Union. When Zelensky is not able to get funding to keep fighting or has some disagreement with an EU state (such as Poland), he quickly goes to Washington; and if Republicans will the 2024 elections, he will ask for some integration in the EU. I cannot trust the behaviour of a nation like this one, and Zelensky is demanding more than Ukraine should get in real circumstances. — javi2541997

I know very little of Zelensky, and considering he had an acting career in the past it is hard to gauge whether he's acting or being genuine. But I do have some sympathy for him, and certainly for the Ukrainian people.

They've been led down the primrose path, and now they're being hung out to dry.

Being a European myself, I put a lot of blame with the weak European leadership, who should have been savvy to what the Americans were up to in Ukraine and given a clear 'no'.

I don't think Russia would want to be part of the EU or NATO, even though such options have been explored in the past, mainly because it would entail ceding some sovereignty to Brussels (or Washington in the case of NATO). — Tzeentch

Oh, yes! You are right, I completely forgot the unconditional requirements for joining the EU is ceding part of the sovereignty.

But I do have some sympathy for him, and certainly for the Ukrainian people. — Tzeentch

I have sympathy - and most importantly, empathy - with Russian folks too. I think they are in a difficult situation, because being a regular citizen on the side which everyone hates is messy. I wish them the best for the future because it is obvious that Putin will not last in power forever. Sooner or later, he will die, and we will see what will happen in post-Putin Russia. I wish we had all learnt from our mistakes, and we wouldn't treat them with superiority. This is what happened under the Yeltsin administration. He was the puppet of Washington and everybody treated him as a drunk clown, soiling Russia's dignity.

I'd prefer me, you and our entire families to be bombed, raped and tortured by the Russians — neomac
Ask to yourself: Are the families of the Western world responsible? — javi2541997

If I could see the point of asking myself this, maybe I would.

Secondly, why don't we care about the rest of the world as well as we do about Ukraine? What about Syria? Afghanistan? Niger? Libya and Morocco natural disasters? Do these ring a bell to you? — javi2541997

Because Ukraine is not threatening to the West, it wants to join the West. Not the same with Russia.
What about Syria? Afghanistan? Niger? Libya and Morocco natural disasters? Do you have any news?
Bells are ringing everywhere from everywhere: natural disasters, climate change, pollution, war, famine, inequality, exploitation, inflation, overpopulation, racism, classism, sexism, populism, oligarchs, dictators, criminals, cancer, obesity, pandemics, personal economic, health, mental, relational, professional issues, and aliens… lots of aliens everywhere kept hidden by the pentagon (aliens love to reside only and exclusively inside the pentagon). So… fucking what? What do you want to do about it? What’s your gospel, holy Javi.

Thirdly, what about Russian citizens? They are not guilty of having Putin as President running their country. — javi2541997

Yet they largely support the war, as far as I can tell:
In August 2023, eight out of ten percent of Russians approved of activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The popularity level was three percent higher than in September 2022, when the figure declined following the announcement of a partial mobilization in the country. After Russia invaded Ukraine at the end of February 2022, the approval rating increased. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, the figure declined.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/

And then compare the Russians under Putin, with the Iranians under the Ayatollah. See any difference?

It was cultural and identitarian too. — neomac

Interesting. You can fight for your American identity and cultural values, but hey! We do not allow Russians to defend their Cyrillic heritage! Russians bad and Putin a dictator! — javi2541997

Nobody has invaded Russia proper. The Americans fought against the British Imperial power in the past, Ukraine is fighting against the Russian Imperial power in the present. While Russia is currently fighting to revive its Imperial power against a seemingly-decaying American Imperial power.

Weren’t you the one claiming that Putin was an imperialist trying to take over the world a while back? Right… — Mikie

Impressive memory. Sarcasm for sarcasm, sure, Putin is an imperialist trying to take over the universe, paradise, hell, dreamland, Barbie World and most importantly be the object of all your most erotic dreams for the rest of your life. And I suspect that so far he overwhelmingly succeeded on the last one.

What I cannot understand is the big efforts of some politicians and neomac to deny Ukraine's Nazi past - or even present - arguing that Putin is just a psychopath. — javi2541997

Two false claims about me.
Never said, implied nor suggested that Putin is “psychopath”. Never denied Ukraine's Nazi past, I’ve discussed about it in more than one occasion in my past posts. And even my rebuttal to you wasn’t meant to deny, but to suggest an explanation. For the Ukrainians Nazism was a powerful way to gain independence from oppressive Russia (read the whole story of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera). Communism and Islam play/ed that role too against oppressive (neo)colonial empires.
BTW Putin cheerfully supports neonazi movements in his home country and around the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Russia). The great Patriotic Heros from “Wagner” - wink wink - had a well known neonazi as a leader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Utkin). The problem is when they turn against Russia. BTW for Russians “nazi” is more synonym of anti-Russian than of “anti-Jew” (anti-semitism in Russia has also a very long and glorious history).

Because Ukraine is not threatening to the West, it wants to join the West. — neomac

They want to be funded by the Western world, which is different. Because speaking plainly and frankly, they are part of the East world. They no longer want to be funded by Russia for reasons that remain unclear to me.

Yet they largely support the war, as far as I can tell: — neomac

I can't take you seriously if you believe in those statistics.

Nobody has invaded Russia proper. — neomac

Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during the Second World War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

Because Ukraine is not threatening to the West, it wants to join the West. — neomac

They want to be funded by the Western world, which is different. Because speaking plainly and frankly, they are part of the East world. They no longer want to be funded by Russia for reasons that remain unclear to me. — javi2541997

I can’t decide for the Ukrainians which world they want to be part of, nor their motives to do so.
They have chosen the West (and it’s not the first time) and they are ready to pay for it.
It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so.

Yet they largely support the war, as far as I can tell: — neomac

I can't take you seriously if you believe in those statistics. — javi2541997

But you should. Surely that’s not the only source of my belief, it was just a sample. As far as I can tell, even concerning those Russians fighting on the front line who may believe that Putin made a big mistake, still Putin managed to convince them that it’s about Russian survival and grievances against the West. So thanks to the pro-Russian propaganda that is even so successful abroad, in the democratic West (and in this thread too), people may genuinely support Putin.

Nobody has invaded Russia proper. — neomac

Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during the Second World War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa — javi2541997

Dude, I was referring to the current war. Ukraine, the US, NATO didn’t invade Russia proper. Russia invaded Ukraine proper. Period. Besides, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa is about Nazi Germany invading Russia (with which Russia was a very good ally for a good while for expansionist reasons) not Ukrainians invading Russia. Not to mention all the Ukrainians who fought back German Nazis for Soviet Union: According to researchers, during 1943-1945 about 4.5 million Ukrainians became Red Army soldiers. After June 1944, 33% of the Soviet Red Army consisted of Ukrainians . The losses of the Ukrainian people during World War Two account for 19-35% of the total losses of the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Ukrainian_Front

I can’t decide for the Ukrainians which world they want to be part of, nor their motives to do so.
They have chosen the West (and it’s not the first time) and they are ready to pay for it.
It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Are you aware that the so called "Russian threat" is only in Washington's paranoia? If you were from Finland, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, etc. I would respect your argument. But, it is obvious that Putin is not that stupid to attack NATO members.

Dude, I was referring to the current war. — neomac

No, you didn't: The Americans fought against the British Imperial power in the past...,
1776 is pretty far from our current year, indeed!

It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Your arguments are based on the false premise that in the Western world there are no threats, which, of course, is completely wrong. I think that before giving lessons to the East we should have to look ourselves in the mirror, and act humbly. If you think that a Russian commander is more dangerous for your security than some psychopath with the right to purchase weapons, you are not experiencing reality, and it is clear that you are living under the lies of Western propaganda. I see and experience a lot of threats in daily life which do not come from Russia precisely: Inflation, scarcity, unemployment, insecurity, political instability, etc. But, didn't you pretend to defend that the Western world is awesome?

Switzerland and Sweden have a tradition of neutrality, or at least had. Moldova has a constitutional neutrality clause, though sort of impaired by Transnistria. The Baltics have their own stories (2023Jul8).

Similar to what's come up before (2022Mar13, 2022Jul21, 2022Oct8, 2022Nov9), suppose that Ukraine had ... ▸ declared neutrality with respect to international military alliance memberships, formally on paper / constitutionally (2022Mar8, 2022Mar9, 2022Mar11); ▸ retained right to self-defense, e.g. from invaders (shouldn't be controversial), including foreign training and/or weaponry as the case may be; ▸ explicitly stated that others respect sovereignty, self-determination, freedom to seek own path (shouldn't be controversial); ▸ actively pursued EU membership, and perhaps sought other such cooperation ... Something along those lines.

The question is what might we then have expected from the Kremlin. Seems like they covered their bases, but what might have transpired then?

Are you aware that the so called "Russian threat" is only in Washington's paranoia? If you were from Finland, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, etc. I would respect your argument. But, it is obvious that Putin is not that stupid to attack NATO members. — javi2541997

I joined this thread a while back and discussed this too on several occasions.
The Russian threat doesn’t consist in attacking Spain out of the blue yesterday. But in wanting to regain its sphere of influence in Easter Europe which then will have an impact on International power balance. Indeed that also implies likely eroding Western security and economic defences (EU and NATO) with all its means: nuclear threats, economic dependencies, political corruption, troll factories, international alliances (with the worst authoritarian regimes including North Corea), adventurism in Africa and Middle East a REPEATEDLY DECLARED intent to establish a new world order along with his Chinese boyfriend. It’s been more than a decade that he was preparing the Russian come back. And attacking Ukraine was Putin’s way to prove to Russians and the Rest of the World how weak is the decaying West and that the king (the US) is naked.
Besides geopolitics is all about security dilemmas, so if one discounts the arguments behind certain choices, it's always "paranoia", INCLUDING Putin's paranoia of NATO encirclement.

Dude, I was referring to the current war. — neomac


No, you didn't: The Americans fought against the British Imperial power in the past...,
1776 is pretty far from our current year, indeed! — javi2541997

Dude, I was insisting an a historical analogy between the US and Ukraine fighting against oppressive imperialism, to support my view of the present war and the Ukrainian attitude toward it, not giving you lessons about Russian history. Again I joined this thread a while back and discussed Russian history too on several occasions, and with many participants. We discussed repeatedly about the Russian fear of invasion since the Mongols (Russia was invaded by Poliand too!) and how much pro-Russian propaganda (including Mearsheimer’s views) is built on it. So don’t get so excited over nothing.

It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Your arguments are based on the false premise that in the Western world there are no threats, which, of course, is completely wrong. I think that before giving lessons to the East we should have to look ourselves in the mirror, and act humbly. If you think that a Russian commander is more dangerous for your security than some psychopath with the right to purchase weapons, you are not experiencing reality, and it is clear that you are living under the lies of Western propaganda. I see and experience a lot of threats in daily life which do not come from Russia precisely: Inflation, scarcity, unemployment, insecurity, political instability, etc. But, didn't you pretend to defend that the Western world is awesome? — javi2541997

Evidently you didn’t read much of what I wrote in this thread. My arguments do not rely on the premise that “in the Western world there are no threats” or that “the Western world is awesome” AT ALL. In international politics, I think it’s intellectually more honest to reason in terms of lesser evil, than to reason as self-entitled nobodies teaching other nobodies their gospel over an utopian world where all evil is magically gone.

Operation Barbarossa was the Axis invading the USSR, which was a composite of many current and previous states in any event. An invasion that was initially so successful because Russia was a military ally of the Nazis, helping them dismember Poland, and thus giving them a launching point for their invasion, and selling them vast supplies of war material until literally the day they attacked.

The Russian mythos of constant invasions requires a pretty selective reading of history. You know, "Napoleon pounced upon Russia," ignoring that they had just fought four wars sending invasion armies west against France prior to that. Germany invaded Russia twice, ignoring that the countries only bordered each other because both were involved in dismantling Poland (multiple times), and that Russia conquered the Baltics, Finland, etc. through wars of aggression. Every country has their own self-serving narratives, but the whole "let's forget we allied with Hitler," thing is a particularly big exclusion for a national mythos founded on WWII.

The Russian threat doesn’t consist in attacking Spain out of the blue yesterday. But in wanting to regain its sphere of influence in Easter Europe which then will have an impact on International power balance. — neomac

I agree. Nonetheless, I still don't know why it is dangerous to switch the power balance often. Every powerful and rich nation tends to impose its way of seeing things. The U.S. did it after WWII, and Russia did it as well in the Soviet era. This is the kind of world we live in, some nations need to be under the umbrella of others, depending on the values and principles they have in common. Yet, it is important to highlight one important fact here. You mentioned my country and I promise you that if my nation got attacked by Morocco - for example - nobody would care. Yes, NATO would defend us, but it is just protocol like. If we disappear as a whole tomorrow, nobody would care honestly. But why does Washington care that much about Ukraine? Again, I am sceptic. There is something I can't see and it is hidden. So, there is hypocrisy defending some nations and others don't.

Besides geopolitics is all about security dilemmas, so if one discounts the arguments behind certain choices, it's always "paranoia", INCLUDING Putin's paranoia of NATO encirclement. — neomac

True, but while the security dilemmas of Russia are very well argued, Washington's not. It is not the same as letting Ukraine join NATO, which is close to Russian frontiers, as having some rockets in Cuba. The U.S. created - pretty well - a big international fence with the aim to get their enemies as far as possible. And they accomplished it, because most of the wars have always taken part far away from their frontiers: WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, etc.

So don’t get so excited over nothing. — neomac

Bollocks! That's what the puppet Zelensky should have in mind!

Pre-2014, some sort of commitment to neutrality backed up by action could have probably avoided this war.

War became virtually inevitable when Washington expressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and then backed up that intention by supporting a coup and by starting to train and arm the Ukrainians.

Even if NATO membership was being held off, the Russians feared Washington would create a fait accompli when it started arming the Ukrainians to such an extent that in time the Russians wouldn't be able to object.

The importance of Ukraine is especially tied to Crimea and Sevastopol. Ukraine entering a rival military alliance would mean Russian access to the Black Sea and its strategic partners could be cut off at any point in time. It had a long-term lend lease deal, which Ukraine could simply cancel and then it would be up to Russia to invade, which would at that point be completely unfeasible.

Everybody involved at the political level is (or should be) aware of this, which is why Washington's attempt to change Ukraine's neutral status in 2008 and 2014 should be seen as a deliberate attempt at escalation.

EU membership may be a difficult point. The EU isn't a military alliance, but the Europhiles in Brussel certainly fantasize about turning the EU into a 'United States of Europe', with a European army, etc., which would essentially create the same situation as if Ukraine would join NATO. One could argue that such a situation is far away, but the nature of geopolitics is long-term.


Right now it will be very difficult to come to a peace agreement, since trust between Russia and the West has been completely shattered (it should be attempted regardless).

Russia is not going to return the territories it now occupies, simply because the trust isn't there to leave Crimea in the same vulnerable situation that it was in. That was the point of their invasion. And it is unlikely Ukraine (and Washington) would agree to a peace deal that doesn't return territory.

The harsh truth is that the rest of Ukraine is only of marginal importance to Russia and Washington, and it will likely end up being the pawn in the geopolitical game for years to come. I only see things getting worse for Ukraine.