Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Neto]

It would have been good if a separate, more "conservative" association of free states would have formed, instead of this push from "the West" to get them into NATO. (I was appalled when I heard, quite some time ago, that one of the requirements for joining NATO was to approve of homosexual unions, etc.) I don't know if President Putin and The Russian Federation would have responded differently to that situation, but it might have softened the threat a fair bit.

[Ken]

It would have been good if a separate, more "conservative" association of free states would have formed, instead of this push from "the West" to get them into NATO. (I was appalled when I heard, quite some time ago, that one of the requirements for joining NATO was to approve of homosexual unions, etc.) I don't know if President Putin and The Russian Federation would have responded differently to that situation, but it might have softened the threat a fair bit.

There are two narratives.

The narrative from Russia is that NATO itself is pushing to expand eastward against the wishes of Central/Eastern Europe.

The narrative from Central/Eastern European countries (former Warsaw Pact) is that they sought to join NATO in order to maintain their independence from the Russia and USSR that previously subjugated them for half a century.

Which narrative is true? Curiously not one single independent democratic country has willingly chosen to enter the Russian sphere of influence on its own. Likewise, no democratic country sitting between these two spheres has willingly chosen to declare neutrality along the lines of Switzerland. That seems telling. Even long-time neutral Sweden is seeking to abandon that position.

And no, there is no gay marriage requirement to join NATO. That piece of disinformation was deliberately spread by anti-NATO Russian propaganda. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia all do not recognize gay marriage and all of them have recently joined NATO

[mike]

Apparently Ukraine has sunk a major Russian warship in the Black Sea.

[temporal1]

Most reports are of heavy damage. So, who knows?
Probably 500 on board.

It reminds of the USS Cole.

Russia Says Ammunition Blast Badly Damages Flagship of Black Sea Fleet
https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-says-a ... 28854.html

[Soloist]

its embarrassing but likely true. The missiles hit the ship in a critical area, started a fire which got the ammo blowing up likely half the ship.
China has missiles they have dubbed the Carrier killer due to their belief they can sink our carriers with it. Anyone can look up the Carrier McCain served on to see how well you can handle a ship fire. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... ft-carrier
I saw the video's, the brief history blip barely gives it credit. Multiple people died very very quickly and multiple decks got badly damaged.

[temporal1]

It would have been good if a separate, more "conservative" association of free states would have formed, instead of this push from "the West" to get them into NATO. (I was appalled when I heard, quite some time ago, that one of the requirements for joining NATO was to approve of homosexual unions, etc.) I don't know if President Putin and The Russian Federation would have responded differently to that situation, but it might have softened the threat a fair bit.

There can be denial or minimizing the level of pressure this powerful political bloc/lobby represents everywhere in the world.
i’m not sure there’s anything to compare. It doesn’t seem possible or probable. But, there it is.

i, also, have no idea about Putin/The Russian Federation, but, there was a definite clash in the 2014 Russian Olympics, with multiple skirmishes following.

[Szdfan]

If NATO were just a great thing, why wouldn’t have all these countries joined decades/years ago?
This seems late in the day for a no-brainer (as now presented).

Questions of NATO over reach in years prior to Feb 24 are ignored. i suspect that’s a mistake.

Not all European countries are part of NATO. Sweden and Finland were neutral.
That's changing because of the threat that Russia now presents.

As I said before, the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfortunately justifies the need for NATO.

This is a sort of (fatal) trap that’s common in secular reasoning.

Whenever human thinking defaults to, “it had to be,” this is excluding God’s promise that, in all circumstances, He will offer His Way out. He’s not teasing or playing games. It’s hard to let go and trust. i struggle as much as anyone.

I would expect a secular government to use secular reasoning.

Both Russia and Ukraine are deeply religious societies who have mixed faith with politics. Both sides have had priests bless weapons and troops. Whose side is God on? Where is God in this catastrophe? Are the Ukrainians murdered by Russian soldiers and Russian missiles experiencing God’s way out?

[mike]

Most reports are of heavy damage. So, who knows?
Probably 500 on board.

It reminds of the USS Cole.

Russia Says Ammunition Blast Badly Damages Flagship of Black Sea Fleet
https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-says-a ... 28854.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-bl ... =flipboard

“It’s a hugely important military event and the biggest defeat of the Russian Navy since World War II,” Ukraine’s presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych wrote on social media. The alleged sinking of the cruiser, he added, is particularly important because Moskva is Russian for Moscow, and because it would be the biggest warship by tonnage sunk since 1945

[Ernie]

After watching what is happening in Ukraine I would want to join NATO if I was Finnish. Russia thinks it has historic claims to Finland as well.

I would not. Staying neutral with countries protecting that neutrality seems to be a better approach than trying to join NATO at this point in history. Wanting to join NATO is what tipped Russia in favor of invading Ukraine.

Ukraine was not in NATO. Who is protecting their neutrality?
The Finns and Swedes are not fools. They know there is no one out there to "protect their neutrality" as you phrase it. The only actual protection is to form alliances with your neighbors. Which is what NATO is.

The other day I read this from the following linked article. A lot of interesting stuff in this article.

"The advantage of these alliances was that it gave the great powers a sense of security. The downside was that if the powers stuck blindly to their alliances, then a small-scale local dispute involving one power might drag the other powers in and turn into a major war."

Sometimes seeking military alliances prevents wars, but many times it creates wars or scales of wars that would have not been fought otherwise. We can see this all the way back to the Old Testament

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/edu ... undcs1.htm

[mike]

Day 50 of the invasion.