Russian invasion of Ukraine

You're right - it wouldn't change shit. It's just I see too much talking / expressing concern and too little action. Especially from France and Germany.

Ukrainians are being slaughtered for being Ukrainians and Macron is thinking of some nicer words to name it.

What good those conversation did so far? Nothing.
As for diplomatic channels - imho they should leave it to foreign ministers to copy-paste some bullshit. Everything that comes from Lavrov's mouth is 100% nonsense anyway.

And this Austrian chancellor who visited Putin on Monday? Great insights from him:

He said the talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin gave him "no optimistic impression."

Putin deserves a shot in the head, not a conversation. That wouldn't change much as well but that would be a good start. And I hope somebody of his own does it.

“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.”

If NATO didn't expand eastward after the fall of Soviet Union, there's a high chance I would be posting this comment from Russia.

On the other hand if expansion of NATO is the only excuse of Putin to attack other countries, I wouldn't mind if we formed some new / alternative military alliances which would work as security grants for Ukraine.

https://www.calvertjournal.com/contributors/show/1798/jamie-rann

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/authors/jamie-rann/

https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/mlc/staff/jamesrann/

I havent asked if he plans to write more, but he does pieces every now and then.

There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev

Did all the other NATO members also promise? Was it unanimous or just a private agreement between the US and Russia? Is the US the boss / gatekeeper of NATO ? Genuine qs

If none of the countries bordering russia were in nato it’s highly likely they would have been invaded.
Today is the memorial day of the Katyn massacre, just another example of russian war crimes to facilitate territorial expansion.
Anyone who thinks the west should appease putin is deluded.
You can make all the excuses for non escalation you like but the elephant in the room is the democratic west has no intention of invading russian territory because they think it belongs to them.

It's just I see too much talking / expressing concern and too little action.

I share your frustration. Well, it's almost anger rather than frustration for me.

Regarding the promise about there being no NATO expansion, this rhetoric really speaks to the mental time frame of a septuagenarian. Supposedly something was said in 1990 or 1991, although there is no written document to prove it. But my point is more about how over half of the world's population have been born after 1990, so how binding could such an agreement really have been by now?

https://population.io/#/1990/1/1/male/United%20Kingdom/summary

White House just announced transfer of $800m of weapons to Ukraine

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/13/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-call-with-president-zelenskyy-and-additional-security-assistance-to-ukraine/

half of the world's population have been born after 1990

Please link to stuff like this so people don't just stumble across things they're but prepared to look at.

“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.”

........

You say that NATO promised never to enlarge to the East and Russia was
cheated on that. But former Warsaw Pact countries requested to be
included in NATO themselves. And Russia signed up to the Founding Act
on Russia-NATO relations in 1997, accepting NATO enlargement.

https://www.corriere.it/economia/aziende/22_aprile_08/we-are-at-war-with-the-west-the-european-security-order-is-illegitimate-c6b9fa5a-b6b7-11ec-b39d-8a197cc9b19a.shtml

At last. It includes "new capabilities tailored to the wider assault we expect Russia to launch in eastern Ukraine. These new capabilities include artillery systems, artillery rounds, and armored personnel carriers. I have also approved the transfer of additional helicopters."

and it’s likely the Baltic is now going to be a NATO boating lake, i guess Putin didn’t expect he would enable that simply by invading Ukraine.

One would assume, given the successful attack on the Moskva, that the Russians will be even more reticent to try to land at Odessa.

the successful attack on the Moskva

Seems like much of its purpose was to provide cover for amphibious assault. From Forbes:

Moskva led the Russian navy’s seaborne assault on the Republic of Georgia back in 2008, protecting three amphibious ships that landed a battalion or two of naval infantry.

So agreements made before I was born don’t apply to me?

Rad. Is that laws too?

Seems like much of its purpose was to provide cover for amphibious assault.

Or to provide cover for the act of pretending that they are going to launch an amphibious assault and therefore tie up Ukrainian military resources away from the Eastern front.

So agreements made before I was born don’t apply to me?

If that agreement is found to impinge on your rights, then possibly.

So agreements made before I was born don’t apply to me?
Rad. Is that laws too?

I get what you're saying. It's not like you can argue that you are exempt from the bits of the high way code that were written before you were born.

But huge multi-lateral agreements between countries need to be based on a democratic mandate. And with so many of the people this (alleged) agreement covers being unable to influence it I hardly think it could be worth much. According to my link above 51% of the world was born after 1990. If you then add everyone who was under 18 at the time (born after 1st of Jan 1982) then it's 63% of the world population who had no way of influencing that agreement. IANAL so I can't argue this in legal terms but it's definitely not something you could go to war over I would think.

Btw, I feel this way about third world debt too if that is of any help.

I didn't think anyone had a right to join Nato etc

But huge multi-lateral agreements between countries need to be based on a democratic mandate.

Then Russia or the Ussr could never have signed any agreements.

Then Russia or the Ussr could never have signed any agreements.

But isn't that pretty much how we deal with all authoritarian states? It may be that there is some fine print in a document somewhere that obliges us to stay quiet about what China is doing to the people of Hong Kong, but why would we let that stop us showing our support to the protestors?

Seems that the Moskva hasn’t sunk, but is badly damaged, still on fire and is being driven to Sevastopol for repairs.

https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/1514650055197741060?s=20&t=VmRkGmevmPKMKmgYRKFNJw

If I were Ukraine I’d throw whatever I have in the area their way to finish the job. Surely one more Neptune or a drone/Mig strike would finish it off.

63% of the world population who had no way of influencing that agreement

If we are having fun with stats, we are in the minority (41%) population wise globally opposing what Russia is doing in Ukraine

This presumes every person in India and China agrees with the position of their governments.

Which is the same presumption starfish&coffee is using