Ukraine retreats from 3 villages in the east as Russia pushes forward

Reality has struck.

There was a chance to avoid all of this:

In 2008, Ukraine requested a NATO membership action plan, which puts aspiring NATO members on track to potentially join the alliance by helping them to prepare for possible future membership. The alliance’s member nations did not agree by consensus to enter Ukraine into the program, but they did declare that Ukraine “will become” a member.

PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: What’s Ukraine’s history of trying to join NATO?

A vote to accept Ukraine should have been held right away. It didn't take long for Russia to annex the Crimea in 2014.

Neither Putin nor any other Russian/Soviet leader has attacked a NATO member. Attacking a NATO member could spark WWIII.

It has been a deterrence that has worked.

I am sorry; but those that remember history should refer to the Cuban missile crisis. That was just Cuba getting medium range nuclear missiles in soft bunkers that the US could have easily taken out.

history.state

Imagine our reaction if Russia or China managed to flip either Canada or Mexico. How long would it take our forces to invade either and throw any Russians or Chinese out and fully take over?

Apply the same logic to Russia. NATO is absolutely a threat to Russia- one who has constantly expanded their power and control since the Soviet Union fell. We promised that NATO would not flip former Soviet border states verbally- which proves Russia should have gotten that in writing, with massive guarantees and penalties involved.

direct.mit

Recently declassified U.S. government documents provide evidence supporting the Soviet/Russian position. Although no non-expansion pledge was ever codified, U.S. policymakers presented their Soviet counterparts with implicit and informal assurances in 1990 strongly suggesting that NATO would not expand in post–Cold War Europe if the Soviet Union consented to German reunification. The documents also show, however, that the United States used the reunification negotiations to exploit Soviet weaknesses by depicting a mutually acceptable post–Cold War security environment, while actually seeking a system dominated by the United States and opening the door to NATO's eastward expansion. The results of this analysis carry implications for international relations theory, diplomatic history, and current U.S.-Russian relations.

Russia is fighting to keep NATO out of it's backyard- literally.

This war has proven is that Russia is not a threat to NATO countries. Their military has been decimated. The only thing they have left is nuclear weapons. Zelenskyy and France are trying to force NATO intervention in Ukraine. If Zelenskyy wants to fight to the last Ukrainian, fine- that is his decision. But we have already funded this war for far too long. If European countries want it to continue they need to stop up. Also any NATO intervention in Ukraine should not involve US troops. NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization. Serbia, Libya, and Iraq have proven that to be an absolute lie.

I am sorry; but those that remember history should refer to the Cuban missile crisis.

Not even close. The USSR was an aggressive, threatening Cold War enemy. Prior to Russia's invasion, Ukraine was neither aggressive nor a threat to Russia in any way, shape or form. 

NATO is absolutely a threat to Russia- one who has constantly expanded their power and control since the Soviet Union fell.

Where do you get this crap? Russian state TV?

NATO is not, and never has been a threat to Russia. Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that it is not an offensive treaty organization. It is a defensive one that was created primarily to protect against invasion by the USSR in the past, and today Russia or anyone else.

The only thing NATO does to Russia is stand in the way of it invading member nations. Boo friggin' hoo. Cry me a river.

Also, NATO doesn't have "power and control." It doesn't govern anything but its own organizational affairs relating to the coordination of potential joint multinational defensive/mutual aid operations.

NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization.

It is.

Serbia, Libya, and Iraq have proven that to be an absolute lie.

How so? Article 4 has been invoked 7 times, Article 5 only once,  all in keeping with the defensive nature of the charter regarding member states.

Not even close. The USSR was an aggressive, threatening Cold War enemy. Prior to Russia's invasion, Ukraine was neither aggressive nor a threat to Russia in any way, shape or form. 

Ukraine wanted to join NATO. NATO as stated made a promise not to flip any former Soviet border states. It has been doing nothing but ever since. Tell Serbia, Iraq, and Libya that NATO is not an aggressive force.

Where do you get this crap? Russian state TV?

No, I actually follow history; and can easily read a map. Did you even try?

images.app.goo.gl  

images.app.goo.gl  

NATO is not, and never has been a threat to Russia. Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that it is not an  offensive  treaty organization. It is a defensive one that was created primarily to protect  against  invasion by the USSR in the past, and today Russia or anyone else.

Again, tell that to Serbia, Iraq, and Libya.

The only thing NATO does to Russia is stand in the way of it invading member nations. Boo friggin' hoo. Cry me a river.

So why didn't Russia invade Ukraine prior to this?

Also, NATO doesn't have "power and control." It doesn't govern anything but its own organizational affairs relating to the coordination of potential joint multinational defensive/mutual aid operations.

Again, tell that to Serbia, Iraq, and Libya.

rand

nato.int

nato.int

All three were either NATO operations; or had NATO providing logistical support and leadership. All 3 involved NATO countries military operations against countries that posed no threat to NATO; and did not hit any NATO country. Libya paid restitution for the Lockerbie bombing. 

bbc

So tell us all again what NATO was doing striking countries that didn't attack them? Since they are only a defensive alliance?

Again, tell that to Serbia, Iraq, and Libya.

None of which were outside the NATO charter or an example of naked aggression.

Granted, the Yugoslavia bombing was not a mutual-aid-for-members operation, but it was limited and the main purpose was to thwart a genocide of Albanians, not to conquer anyone. Another stated purpose was to help prevent further destabilization of the region, which in a loose and roundabout way could be seen as at least semi-defensive, considering the location. It's still not an example of NATO being a threat to anyone. It's not as if they just decided to invade and conquer a peaceful neighbor like Russia did.

Iraq is a truly piss poor example. Really reaching there.

The Libyan intervention was a request of the UN Security Council, and also included non-NATO states. 

If your purpose is to convince anyone that NATO is some kind of evil aggressor or an existential threat to non-member states around the world, then, 1) you're guaranteed to fail, and 2) I have to wonder about your motives, if not your sanity.

Why do you seem to be on the side of Russia in all of this? I mean, seriously? 

If you want an example of an evil aggressor and a genuine threat to others – it's Russia, not NATO.

How long would it take our forces to invade either and throw any Russians or Chinese out and fully take over?

You tried that in 1812 ... I recall a fashionable lady of chocolat charms trekking through a winter wonderland to put an end to that malimagined 'destiny'.

Yes, the only thing they have left is nuclear weapons— and everybody knows those are totally harmless!

The only thing NATO does to Russia is stand in the way of it invading member nations.

And that right there stands in the way of putins dreams of creating another soviet union 2.0 or russian empire . without all those vassal states either of those former entities had at the russians disposal , russia actually becomes somewhat impotent , even with nukes .

Think about it , what the hell does russia produce , that cant be gotten anywhere else ? they found out over the last 2 years , nothing .

Big problem with ukraine for them is , not only can the ukrainians be competative , that territory being right on the border , if it opens up to the EU and EU products ? there goes russian protectionism of their own manufacturing and economy . more money will be going out of the country than comes in . That means less money for the corrupt kleptocrats in country to skim from .

Im just waiting to hear a loud "pop" and see someone has had a cranial -rectal  removal experience.

France wanting to send troops to ukraine , will NOT invoke art 5 of the NATO charter , France would be doing so on their own outside the charter  even IF Russia could bomb or send missiles into France . that is unlikely because of a couple national borders in-between the 2  neither would get permission to use the airspace over pother nations land. .So the russians would be stuck fighting the french in ukraine or somewhere else on the planet . or be forced to do it the hard way and use the sea lanes .

 as for the russian boomers in the baltic , as soon as they open the sub pen doors , everyone on lake NATO will know about it so there goes stealth and surprise ,  black sea fleets pretty well fucked as well ,  That leaves the naval bases over by Japan and at Archangel  up north by the arctic ,  both of those fairly well monitored for activity .

"But, but ,Russia has nukes ........"  Judging from the status of its navy , Airforce , and armour , maint wise , i would say the soviet era tech they have been sitting on , may , or may not actually work .  i give them a 50% chance to get a missile in the air, keep in mind we will know they are getting ready to launch long before they can actually do so  , another 50% chance it doesnt blow up in its launch tube , thats IF it doesnt detonate once they turn the arming keys .

 The chinese just had a little "problem" that got leaked out , seems those guarding their missiles were syphoning rocket fuel for use in their hot pots for cooking while on duty and replacing it with ,,,,,,, water .  my kids use to do that with my vodka . So there is always that possibility happening in russia as well .

Not even close. The USSR was an aggressive, threatening Cold War enemy. Prior to Russia's invasion, Ukraine was neither aggressive nor a threat to Russia in any way, shape or form. 

Ukraine was a threatening Cold War enemy with a nuclear arsenal.  Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power at the height of the Cold War.  Ukraine was an imminent threat to Europe.  The USSR was Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Transcaucasia.  The eastern bloc wasn't created until after the Soviet Red Army captured Berlin and decapitated the NAZI government.  (The western allies allowed that to happen for political reasons.)

NATO is not, and never has been a threat to Russia. Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that it is not an offensive treaty organization. It is a defensive one that was created primarily to protect against invasion by the USSR in the past, and today Russia or anyone else.

NATO really has expanded into what had been the Soviet Eastern Bloc.  NATO really has parked nuclear weapons on Russia's border.  NATO nukes really have been closer to Russian territory than Cuba is to the United States.  NATO has adopted the language of 'deterrence' but those nukes really can be used in an offensive manner that would overwhelm Russian defenses.  Just because western countries and NATO says something doesn't make it so.  We've seen how liberals (and especially neoliberals) twist the facts to justify anything.

Also, NATO doesn't have "power and control." It doesn't govern anything but its own organizational affairs relating to the coordination of potential joint multinational defensive/mutual aid operations.

Look, Joe Biden has replaced NATO with the European Union.  Biden is fighting Russia with economic sanctions which requires cooperation by the EU.  Ukraine was only a stall for time to allow the sanctions time to work.  NATO isn't doing a damned thing to confront Russia or defend Europe other than act as a distraction.  Biden's idea was to destabilize the Russian economy and foment a popular uprising against the Putin regime.  That is the comic book version of how the Cold War ended.  But everyone ignores that what brought the Soviet Union to its knees was Chernobyl in Ukraine.  Biden's brilliant idea didn't work during the Cold War and its not working now.

What Joe Biden's political stunt has revealed is that Europe and Russia had become trading partners.  The Cold War really was over.  Why wouldn't Russia want to get rid of the NATO threat to open trade and cooperation between Europe and Russia?  The only thing Barack Obama and Joe Biden has done was to confirm Russia's fears.  The United States only uses NATO as a liberal excuse to justify rather stupid attempts to exert political control over both western and eastern Europe.  

There was a mutual defense agreement between Ukraine and NATO as a condition for nuclear disarmament.  Ukraine did not need NATO membership.  So, why did Joe Biden promise that US troops wouldn't fight in Ukraine long before Russia invaded?  Why did Biden throw 20 years of promises and cooperation between NATO and Ukraine under the bus?

There was a chance to avoid all of this

Blame Russia-aligned Yanukovych, elected in 2010. The previous president, Yushchenko, was the one who started the NATO talk. 

From your link:

For a few years starting in 2010, Ukraine adopted a non-aligned status that was codified into law with Yanukovych as president, meaning it could not join military alliances.

Yanukovych threw a wrench in the gears, and once Putin invaded Crimea a unanimous accession vote by NATO members became impossible, due to the ongoing war in the southeast.

Remind us all which US president backed the Ukraine coup that removed the duly elected Yanukovych?

cato

When he rejected the European Union’s terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer, angry demonstrators filled Kiev’s Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in other cities.

Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered   reasonably free and fair —about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.

Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to   show solidarity  with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐​wing  Svoboda Party , and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.

But McCain’s actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As Ukraine’s political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the anti‐​Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5,   she handed out cookies  to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.

The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland  telephone call  in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post‐​Yanukovych government. The U.S‑favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that “Yats is the guy” who would do the best job.

Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’s lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country—and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations—to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.

Washington’s conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐​term basis. Nuland stated that “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.” She added that what Yatseniuk needed “is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”

The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s  political turbulence . Pyatt stated bluntly that “we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition].” Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president’s national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him “probably tomorrow for an atta‐​boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden’s willing.”

Remind me who was president when the US threatened to withhold aide unless the fired a government official for investigating the company the VP's son worked for? or who was President when Russia annexed a large portion of Ukraine last time?

Remind us all which US president backed the Ukraine coup that removed the duly elected Yanukovych?

So? Ukraine didn't want to become a puppet state to Russia, and Yanukovych apparently did. Not to mention the fact that he was corrupt as hell.

Hell, Americans are supposed to support revolts like that. It's basically been our whole shtick for quite a while now – freedom, independence, self-determination...all that jazz.

Which president?

LOL!!!

A vote to accept Ukraine should have been held right away. It didn't take long for Russia to annex the Crimea in 2014. Neither Putin nor any other Russian/Soviet leader has attacked a NATO member. Attacking a NATO member could spark WWIII. It has been a deterrence that has worked.

Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine -- 1997

NATO Summit: NATO-Ukraine Commission Fact Sheet -- 1997  Excert:

NATO announced its recognition of the Yavoriv military facility in western Ukraine as the first PfP training center in the former Soviet Union. Yavoriv has already been the site of several NATO-partner training exercises.

NATO-Ukraine relations: The background - 2015

Exercise Rapid Trident 2018 Enables Relationships to Cross Borders - 2018

Red Arrow Soldiers in Ukraine for multinational mission - 2019

NATO – Ukraine cooperation in the military sphere - 2020

NATO has been operating in Ukraine since 1994.  Promises were made but not kept.  Barack Obama set the stage for a conflict between the United States and Russia following the Euromaidan coupe in 2014.  The United States and NATO really did increase their presence in Ukraine as a response to Russia annexing Crimea using Partnership for Peace as a pretext.  Obama sanctioned Russia and increased military activities in Ukraine as a provocation toward Russia.  The installed Ukrainian government really did use NATO and the US military as a threat against Russia.  The installed Ukrainian government relied upon support from Obama to legitimize itself and to legitimize attacking political opposition in eastern Ukraine.  Obama (and Joe Biden) deliberately created a low level civil war in Ukraine as a political move against Russia.

In 2021 (six months before the invasion) Joe Biden was warning of invasion, threatening Russia with sanctions, and promised the world that US troops would not fight in Ukraine.  And if US troops wouldn't fight in Ukraine then NATO certainly wasn't going to mount a military effort in Ukraine.  Russia was at the border of Ukraine so NATO and US troops packed up, headed for the border, waved goodbye, and wished Ukraine luck.

Joe Biden is fucking liar that threw 20 years of promises and cooperation with Ukraine under the bus.  Frankly I've grown tired of the drooly-assed whines about NATO membership.  NATO formed a mutual defense pact with Ukraine as a condition for nuclear disarmament; Ukraine gave up its nukes because the US and NATO promised to defend Ukraine.  Ukraine didn't need NATO membership.  Biden could have invoked those prior agreements to justify calling for an Article 5 response.  But that's not what Joe Biden did, is it?  And now we have to listen to a lot of bullshit built upon outright lies. 

[✘]

Yup.

MEH.... This happens in warfare , both sides advance and retreat as the battle field and situation dictates to each sides advantage .

 i remind myself this "special military operation" was only to last 3 days to a week at most  according to conventional wisdom and Russian forces would be welcomed with open arms and happiness. .

 If what the Ukrainians have done over the last 2 years is considered welcoming with open arms and happiness, i would hate to see what they do to someone that pisses them off.

 As for what i can see Russia has already lost, even IF they achieve their objectives . If they win , they have been the aggressor against a smaller weaker neighbor, IF they fail , they lost to a smaller weaker neighbor who didnt have a military to start with .

 They also lost by showing the world , what their capabilities actually are  in real world situations . way i see it the only way Russia comes out of this in any form a winner is if it does so as an economic powerhouse like it did after WW2 , i dont see that happening . Too many competitors in the world market with limited places to sell whatever product they would produce . Exporting war and the means to conduct it and terrorism may be lucrative in the short run , but not everyone is going to be a customer  or adherent of Russian methodology or the kremlins khanate ideology  ..  . 

As for the butchers bills of the conflict ?  Ukraine still exists , with MINIMAL help it COULD be getting , and still coming away with less losses than those on the opposing side  I would suggest they continue to ignore other countries rules of engagement and they target and fight their own war on their terms and as they see fit .  Turns out what i was told 40 years ago almost is true , Ukrainians were and still are the toughest SOBs of the former Union of soviet republics , Russians are mere ghosts of former past glories and hype .

                                                                                                                                      Slava Ukrani 

I agree with your comment and would add this:

Ukrainians were and still are the toughest SOBs of the former Union of soviet republics , Russians are mere ghosts of former past glories and hype .

Over two years ago when this war started it as a Russian Bear a nuclear power with an army/navy/airforce considered one of the very best in that world. 

Their opponent was Ukraine, a much smaller country with a very short history of democracy and all the problems with a new and fledgling democracy. Small army tiny navy and air force. A David and Goliath and 2 plus years later what do we see now. This David has fought the Russian Giant to a draw (a best for the Russians) they did it with a limited amount of weapons many of them hand me downs and out dated, it was a mish-mash of weapons all requiring different ammo and maintenance their problem were insurmountable according to most experts. That tiny or nonexistent Navy has destroyed much of the Russian fleet, their air for ith the most antiquated plane has not allowed the Russians air control and their ground troops, regular, home guard, and just plain old civilians have crushed much of the dreaded bears military. They have done it with courage, intelligence, cunning, and a never-quit attitude. The Russian Bears was shown to be a corrupt, inept poorly lead military.

Better to supply Ukraine and have then do the fighting now than for US to end up sending troops. Keep the battle where it is. 

Only ones talking escalation and expansion outside Ukraine and Russian territory is the Kremlin as threats, and the vatnic Putin troll farm supporters using disinformation.

The rest are just classic Kremlin useful idiots.