The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Musashi_kenshin]

He's got the KGB, the guns, the army, and Putin's support. He's quite capable of putting any protests or uprisings down.

That's not the point. I was responding specifically to a suggestion that he could use it as:

"the old standby of a foreign adventure to distract the peasants at home from the domestic problems"

My point being that the "peasants" (otherwise known as the general public) would be more annoyed, not less, by him invading Ukraine to help Putin. So if he's concerned about the domestic situation he'll largely stay out of it.

 

[koxinga]

Before all this unpleasantness started it was generally felt that Ukrainian membership was a matter of when; not if. As it stands however NATO has nothing to gain from granting Ukraine membership; it might even be seen by Russia a casus belli for war. If things get worse in the coming years it will also be interesting to see what Sweden and Finland do with regards to membership.

Well, Russia has done a fantastic job at destabilising the country, directly and indirectly. NATO is unlikely to admit a country that has a potential to trigger Article 5. If this was Russia's long play, they have done well because that is the de-facto situation, short of their demands of making it formal.

 

[Vivendi]

That was in the 1990's and involved the cooperation of Russia [it had no major objections]; no way the NATO would have come reached such an agreement with the Ukraine. It would have been a political minefield given the geo strategic conditions during that period. Also. the potential for trouble with Russia was not something which was factored in by the Ukrainians in the mid to late 1990's.

What I'm really interested in is determining if indeed [as has been mentioned in various places] whether in the post Cold War period; to gain Russian cooperation in various areas [namely German reunification; disarmament, etc] and to provide it with the assurance it wanted; NATO promised never to expand NATO to Russia's border.

Putin no longer fears a ‘democratic Ukraine’

Amid botched Western policies, pro-democracy Russians do not see post-Maidan Ukraine as a role model.

www.aljazeera.com

''Despite all the Maidan hopes for radical change and democratic transformation, it became apparent that the country was still ruled by the same clique of oligarchs, aided by networks of corrupt politicians and security agents, who ran the show before the revolution. Some new personalities emerged, but most remained in place, as did the nature of the political system. With a war in one corner of the country, powerful organised crime and way more political assassinations than Putin’s Russia saw during the same period, Ukraine came to remind Russians of the turbulent 1990s''.

''From the Russian perspective, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution has also revealed the hypocrisy of the West. Despite its persistent rhetoric on democratic values, Brussels and Washington have been turning a blind eye to a multitude of factors that prevented Ukraine from becoming a role model for Russians. These include discriminatory language laws, which severely restrict the use of the Russian language, the glorification of Nazi collaborators in street names and public celebrations, the apparent lack of desire by the government to investigate political assassinations and the fact that oligarchs are still running the show.''

''Russians have felt that the West betrayed them in the 1990s. After the Soviet Union collapsed and they emerged from the totalitarian regime, they hoped they would be offered full integration into the Western world, its military and political structures. Instead, the West invited everyone in the neighbourhood, except Russia, to join NATO and the European Union.''

NATO never signed an agreement with Russia saying that they would not expand NATO eastwards.

Russia however signed the Budapest agreement with Ukraine, the US and the UK. Russia broke this agreement. The US and the UK should keep honoring their commitment to this agreement, and keep supporting Ukraine, as they currently do.

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. Those assurances played a key role in persuading the Ukrainian government in Kyiv to give up what amounted to the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, consisting of some 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads.

Before agreeing to give up this nuclear arsenal, Kyiv sought three assurances. First, it wanted compensation for the value of the highly-enriched uranium in the nuclear warheads, which could be blended down for use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Russia agreed to provide that.

Second, eliminating ICBMs, ICBM silos, and bombers did not come cheaply. With its economy rapidly contracting, the Ukrainian government could not afford the costs. The United States agreed to cover those costs with Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance.

Third, Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.

Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document. It used military force to seize, and then illegally annex, Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Russian and Russian proxy forces have waged war for more than five years in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, claiming more than 13,000 lives and driving some two million people from their homes.

Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation. That owed in part to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He had his flaws, but he insisted that there be no revision of the boundaries separating the states that emerged from the Soviet collapse. Yeltsin respected Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Vladimir Putin does not.

U.S. officials did assure their Ukrainian counterparts, however, that there would be a response. The United States should continue to provide reform and military assistance to Ukraine. It should continue sanctions on Russia. It should continue to demand that Moscow end its aggression against Ukraine. And it should continue to urge its European partners to assist Kyiv and keep the sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum (brookings.edu)

Another agreement that Russia has broken, and which is highly relevant, is INF:

In December 2018

, NATO Foreign Ministers supported the finding of the United States that Russia was in material breach of its obligations under the INF Treaty and called on Russia to urgently return to full and verifiable compliance with the Treaty.

Allies remained open to dialogue and engaged Russia on its violation, including at a NATO-Russia Council meeting on 25 January 2019. Russia continued to deny its INF Treaty violation, refused to provide any credible response, and took no demonstrable steps toward returning to full and verifiable compliance.

As a result of Russia's continued non-compliance, on 1 February 2019, the United States announced its decision to suspend its obligations under Article XV of the INF Treaty. This meant that the United States could terminate the Treaty within six months of this date if Russia had not come back into compliance.

Also on 1 February 2019, NATO Allies said that unless Russia honoured its INF Treaty obligations through the verifiable destruction of all of its 9M729 systems, thereby returning to full and verifiable compliance, Russia would bear sole responsibility for the end of the Treaty. NATO Allies also made clear that NATO would continue to closely review the security implications of Russian intermediate-range missiles and would continue to take steps necessary to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the Alliance's overall deterrence and defence posture.

On 15 February 2019, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recalled at the Munich Security Conference that "it was on this very stage, at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, this was the place that President Putin first publically expressed his desire for Russia to leave the INF Treaty. A treaty that is only respected by one side will not keep us safe".

The Alliance did everything in its remit to encourage Russia to return to compliance before 2 August 2019 so as to preserve the INF Treaty.

On 26 June 2019, NATO Defence Ministers urged Russia once again to return to full and verifiable compliance. They also considered potential NATO measures – such as exercises, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air and missile defences, and conventional capabilities – and agreed that NATO would continue to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. At the same time, Defence Ministers confirmed that NATO had no intention to deploy new land-based nuclear missiles in Europe, and did not want a new arms race.

NATO - Topic: NATO and the INF Treaty
Please note that it was NATO that said Russia was breaking INF, not just the US. Thus, all 29 NATO member countries agreed that they had sufficient evidence to conclude that Russia was in breach of the INF agreement. However, also other countries outside NATO was clear that Russia was in breach of INF, including non-NATO countries Sweden and Finland:
Germany, Sweden, Netherlands urge Russia not to abandon INF treaty (news.am)
statement-by-finland-nw.pdf (un.org)

 

[STURM]

NATO never signed an agreement with Russia saying that they would not expand NATO eastwards.

No doubt but were there ever any verbal or unofficial assurances/statements to that effect made in the 1990's?

Because the fact remains that NATO has expanded closer and closer and the Russians view this as a major threat. NATO may have planned for this back in the post Cold War period as part of a wider security move but I doubt the Russians back then foresaw the extent NATO would expand. Along with a few countries; it's virtually only Finland and Sweden amongst those in Europe which are Western aligned; who have yet to join NATO.

Can Russia and NATO Come to an Agreement?

Is there a realistic format for a political undertaking not to expand NATO to Russia’s borders?

carnegiemoscow.org

''It would appear that Moscow began to review its “strategic patience” in relations with the West and Ukraine after NATO decided to grant Ukraine the status of Enhanced Opportunities Partner in June 2020. There was talk in Kyiv of attaining the status of Major Non-NATO Ally, which would remove virtually all restrictions on military cooperation with the Americans.''

''This, combined with Western sanctions against Russia, a lack of progress on implementing the Minsk agreements aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and the immobilization of Russian tools for influencing Ukrainian politics, was seen in Moscow as an alarming sign of Ukraine’s move into the Western security orbit.''

''The political pledge made to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand its military infrastructure onto the territory of the former East Germany has never been broken. That is better than an unspoken promise not to accept Ukraine into NATO for another ten years. Diplomacy is the art of the possible, and this scenario, unlike others, is possible.''

 

[Vivendi]

''From the Russian perspective, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution has also revealed the hypocrisy of the West. Despite its persistent rhetoric on democratic values, Brussels and Washington have been turning a blind eye to a multitude of factors that prevented Ukraine from becoming a role model for Russians. These include discriminatory language laws, which severely restrict the use of the Russian language, the glorification of Nazi collaborators in street names and public celebrations, the apparent lack of desire by the government to investigate political assassinations and the fact that oligarchs are still running the show.''

This is not correct -- the West has not been "turning a blind eye", on the contrary they have made it clear that these issues must be addressed before Ukraine can join EU or NATO. However at the end of the day, Ukraine must address these issues, they cannot be addressed by "the West".

''Russians have felt that the West betrayed them in the 1990s. After the Soviet Union collapsed and they emerged from the totalitarian regime, they hoped they would be offered full integration into the Western world, its military and political structures. Instead, the West invited everyone in the neighbourhood, except Russia, to join NATO and the European Union.''

This is also not correct. "the West" could have done more to integrate Russia, but it is simply not correct to say that Russia was left out in the cold. They were invited to participate in dialogs with NATO. NATO officials also explained the process of obtaining NATO membership to Russia. The process would be the same for Russia as it was for, say, Poland. With the same requirements. Russia however seemed not interested to follow the same process as other countries in Eastern Europe, it seems they wanted special treatment, and special rules for Russia joining NATO.

For more than three decades, NATO has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia.

NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990 (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia.

In 1997, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002, this was upgraded, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) (The Founding Act can be read here)

We set out to build a good relationship with Russia. We worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning.
However, in March 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. At the same time, NATO has kept channels for communication with Russia open. The NATO-Russia Council remains an important platform for dialogue. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has invited all members of the NATO-Russia Council to a series of meetings to improve security in Europe.

NATO - Topic: NATO-Russia relations: the facts -- I highly recommend you visit this link, it clarifies many of the misunderstandings that you and a few others in this thread has about the relationship between NATO and Russia.

Rogozin is a highly biased person, so not sure why you quote him so much?

 

[STURM]

They were invited to participate in dialogs with NATO.

Amongst other things it participated in various engagements, programmes [such as 'Partnership For Peace] and dialogues with NATO/the West. It may have had different views on various areas but it also cooperated in various areas including Libya; Russia supporting a UN Resolution for military action. It wasn't as if Russia decided to be difficult or belligerent from the day the Cold War ended.

Rogozin is a highly biased person, so not sure why you quote him so much?

To be honest I have no idea who he is and I tend to read and post links which I feel are interesting and pertinent to the discussion. Also; whether he's indeed bias or not is open to interpretation. Not too mention the fact that everyone is a bit bias to some extent.

 

[Atunga]

This is not correct -- the West has not been "turning a blind eye", on the contrary they have made it clear that these issues must be addressed before Ukraine can join EU or NATO. However at the end of the day, Ukraine must address these issues, they cannot be addressed by "the West".

This is also not correct. "the West" could have done more to integrate Russia, but it is simply not correct to say that Russia was left out in the cold. They were invited to participate in dialogs with NATO. NATO officials also explained the process of obtaining NATO membership to Russia. The process would be the same for Russia as it was for, say, Poland. With the same requirements. Russia however seemed not interested to follow the same process as other countries in Eastern Europe, it seems they wanted special treatment, and special rules for Russia joining NATO.


NATO - Topic: NATO-Russia relations: the facts -- I highly recommend you visit this link, it clarifies many of the misunderstandings that you and a few others in this thread has about the relationship between NATO and Russia.

Rogozin is a highly biased person, so not sure why you quote him so much?

NATO was designed to contain the Soviet Union and after the Soviet Union collapse, it's now actively fighting to contain Russia, it's laughable to think Russia will join NATO then take orders from the US, something that has made Russia question the existence of NATO since the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact are no more existing. that said, NATO and the West are turning a blind eye to Moscow's demands which is no more NATO expansion.. they have no where else to expand to, the Russians have no where else to run to, Moscow has declared it a red line. We hope a diplomatic solution can be found at the end

 

[Feanor]

Another agreement that Russia has broken, and which is highly relevant, is INF:


NATO - Topic: NATO and the INF Treaty
Please note that it was NATO that said Russia was breaking INF, not just the US. Thus, all 29 NATO member countries agreed that they had sufficient evidence to conclude that Russia was in breach of the INF agreement. However, also other countries outside NATO was clear that Russia was in breach of INF, including non-NATO countries Sweden and Finland:
Germany, Sweden, Netherlands urge Russia not to abandon INF treaty (news.am)
statement-by-finland-nw.pdf (un.org)

Remember when Russia claimed NATO member nations had access to Novichok, a number of countries denied it and then the Czech president spilled the beans? I'm far from sold that this isn't a case of political solidarity on stance rather then a well-founded factual position. Pavel Podvig has a much better discussion on the subject. And let's remember, the land-based VLS the US is setting up in Eastern Europe is also a potential treaty violator.

Personally I'm still curious to see this larger but similar launch vehicle that is allegedly deployed and has been for years, with Kalibr.

Did the United States just change its theory of INF violation? - Blog - Russian strategic nuclear forces

 

[Feanor]

No doubt but were there ever any verbal or unofficial assurances/statements to that effect made in the 1990's?

Because the fact remains that NATO has expanded closer and closer and the Russians view this as a major threat. NATO may have planned for this back in the post Cold War period as part of a wider security move but I doubt the Russians back then foresaw the extent NATO would expand. Along with a few countries; it's virtually only Finland and Sweden amongst those in Europe which are Western aligned; who have yet to join NATO.

There were a number of statements made to that effect that weren't necessarily binding, but created a certain impression.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Poll: Over half of Ukrainians will actively resist Russian invasion

More than half of Ukrainians will actively resist in the event of an all-out Russian invasion, according to a new survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology published on Dec. 17. The Kremlin has amassed nearly 100,000 troops surrounding Ukraine in November in what Ukrainian and...

kyivindependent.com

Interesting poll on the percentage of Ukranians ready to take up arms and fight should Russia invade. 33% of correspondence say they will take up arms to fight, while 21% say they will take other forms of resistance, like protests and other forms of civil disobedience, Crimea and the Donbass region were not polled, will this be enough to cause Russia major problems if they decide to launch an offensive?

Your country is invaded, not for annihilation but for occupation and a change of government. Do you take up arms knowing you'll most likely die and leave your family to fend for themselves? Or do you understand it's not as easy as it sounds?

I think if every one of those polled actually thinks about this question, really thinks, it would be much lower than 33%. And this would be a problem for Russia, but only as a delaying factor. It will only cause Russia to react more aggressively, and will tear up Ukraine's cities whilst the end result is the same except more casualties.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

Ukraine accuses Russian military of using drone to attack troops - Washington Examiner

Russian military forces used a drone to attack Ukrainian troops in the eastern Ukrainian region wracked by conflict since 2014, according to a senior Ukrainian diplomat.“Just a few days ago, on Jan. 25, armed formations of the Russian Federation once again attacked the positions of the Armed...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

We have been living in a state of conflict with Russia since 2014,” he said. “If Russia succeeds here in Ukraine, that will send a clear message to everyone who wants to rewrite rules on which the world is based — that this is possible, that the United States and the democratic coalition led by the United States are incapable to maintain the current world order. They are weak. And if you behave in a bold, aggressive way, you will eventually succeed.”
From the Ukrainian foreign minister.
Well like it or not he has a very valid point.
This may get alot uglier yet, Vlad has put the democratic world in a tricky spot for sure.

 

[STURM]

We have been living in a state of conflict with Russia since 2014,” he said. “If Russia succeeds here in Ukraine, that will send a clear message to everyone who wants to rewrite rules on which the world is based — that this is possible, that the United States and the democratic coalition led by the United States are incapable to maintain the current world order. They are weak. And if you behave in a bold, aggressive way, you will eventually succeed.”

The same also applies to China and North Korea. With China there is the will and urgency but with North Korea there is simply no idea of how to deal with the North Koreans who, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Iran; can cause the U.S. and its allies great damage.

 

[Atunga]

Poland Will Send Shoulder-Fired Anti-Aircraft Missiles To Ukraine

The Polish military aid package for Ukraine is set to include portable anti-aircraft missiles, drones, and ammunition.

www.thedrive.com

Poland sending grom shoulder fired surface to air missile to deter Russia if an invasion should take place. How effective will these missile systems be in fending off Russian aircraft? These are portable and can be carried around, can Russia defeat these missile system if a battle ensues?

 

[Feanor]

Poland Will Send Shoulder-Fired Anti-Aircraft Missiles To Ukraine

The Polish military aid package for Ukraine is set to include portable anti-aircraft missiles, drones, and ammunition.

www.thedrive.com

Poland sending grom shoulder fired surface to air missile to deter Russia if an invasion should take place. How effective will these missile systems be in fending off Russian aircraft? These are portable and can be carried around, can Russia defeat these missile system if a battle ensues?

These are regular MANPADS. They might be in better condition then Ukraine's Soviet-era stockpile, and more is better in principle. Ukrainian infantry units are badly short on air defense. But they don't fundamentally alter the situation.

 

[STURM]

But they don't fundamentally alter the situation.

Yes, neither does anything else being send. They somewhat improve things but that's it.

 

[koxinga]

Well, it is free. That helps. Ukraine military industrial complex has companies like Luch Design Bureau (HOME) that are capable of producing anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles but the local investment is limited and are dependent on foreign customers. Same with ideas like the Kilchen SAM (Ukraine Air Defense System Kilchen)

 

[Vivendi]

“We got an email saying they’d planted bombs in all the city’s educational establishments and shopping malls,” explains Vashchenko.

There’s no sign of panic in her voice; in fact Vashchenko sounds slightly resigned. That’s because this is the eleventh time this year that she has responded to a bomb alert just in Zhytomyr.

Nationwide, Ukrainian police had to check more than 3,000 sites for bombs in the first three weeks of 2022 alone. All were false alerts.

“This is an element of the hybrid war. To create chaos, uncertainty about tomorrow, and a constant state of stress. So that schools have to switch to distance learning, and businesses close,” explained Zhytomyr Mayor Serhiy Sukhomlyn.

Ukrainians cope with fake bomb threats as Moscow mounts hybrid war (france24.com)

Bomb threats against children. Russian hybrid war is disgusting. These bomb threats reminded me of "apartment bombings" in Moscow in 1999, executed by FSB to justify the war in Chechenia: Vladimir Putin & 1999 Russian Apartment-House Bombings -- Was Putin Responsible? - by David Satter (hudson.org)

 

[Vivendi]

Russian propaganda tries to make the war in Ukraine into a story about the US and NATO "aggression". Most people realize this is a lie. European non-NATO countries are fully onboard in supporting Ukraine, and condemning Russian aggression, including Austria:

Russia is fully prepared to invade Ukraine and is using it for political purposes, Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer has said.

"There is a very serious situation between Ukraine and the Russian Federation and the escalation that is happening at the borders is worrying. The Russian Federation now has everything at hand to launch an invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Federation also understands this. It uses it in a political manner," he said.

Nehammer added that the European Union is trying its best to promote dialogue, including within of the Normandy format. "The Normandy format has been reinstated, which is very important. In [this format], Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France are sitting at the same table. And this, in my opinion, is very important," he said.

He added that EU member states also provide direct support to Ukraine. According to him, "Austria is doing the same." Against this background, he pointed to his planned visit to Ukraine and participation in a major Ukrainian-Austrian forum, which should be seen as a show of support for Ukraine "in this tense time."

Russia using Ukraine invasion threats for political purposes – Austrian chancellor (ukrinform.net)

Non-NATO countries Sweden and Switzerland support Ukraine, also financially:

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba thanked the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, and Switzerland for establishing a fund to mitigate Russia's destabilizing influence in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine.
“Grateful to Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and USA for establishing the Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine, a UK-led multi-year and multi-donor programme worth up to £35m,” Kuleba posted on Twitter.

Kuleba thanks participants in Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine (ukrinform.net)
As most of you know, Switzerland is also outside of the EU, and a neutral country.

Non-NATO country Finland also recognize the threat Russia is posing to Ukraine, and indeed the whole of Europe:

The threat of war is growing at the borders of Ukraine, and Russia is challenging the foundations of European security,” he stated in the Parliament House.

Finland considers options of supporting Ukraine militarily:

There are ongoing discussions on Finland possibly supporting Ukraine’s defence capability, Defence Minister Antti Kaikkonen of the Centre party revealed.

There are “different options” to help Ukrainian defence capability, Kaikkonen said in an email response to questions sent by the Uusi Suomi newspaper.

Discussions have continued over the years, but the most recent talks with the Ukrainian ambassador were held on 28 January, he added.

Finland in talks with Ukraine about defensive weapons supply – EURACTIV.com
Non-NATO country Ireland is also clear on the situation:

Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has described the situation between Russia and Ukraine as enormously serious.

The threat of Russia invading Ukraine is being taken incredibly seriously by the EU, the US and the UK, he said.

Speaking on RTÉ's Six One News, he said an invasion by Russia could result in the first land war in Europe in many decades, which could result in an enormous loss of life and disruption right across the continent of Europe.

The minister said the EU was absolutely unified about the deterrent that needs to be put in place to ensure that Russia thinks very deeply before it would invade Ukraine.

Ireland advises against non-essential travel to Ukraine (rte.ie)

European democracies are therefore united in their assessment of the situation, including non-NATO and non-EU countries. They also agree that Russia is threatening Ukraine, and needs to step back. There is an agreement between all European democracies that diplomacy must prevail.

 

[seaspear]

Reading through this article does suggest Europe may have now been a different place if Russia had joined N.A.T.O , certainly, there are pre-requisites but if Russia were invited would this stabilise Europe?

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ananda]

Better say that Most other European are tend to support Ukraine position. However saying all of them against Russia or in same line on supporting Ukraine is also not entirely true.

Hungary’s leader, visiting Moscow, calls Russian demands reasonable and says sanctions are pointless. (Published 2022)

On a friendly visit to Moscow, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary diverged sharply from his NATO and European Union allies.

www.nytimes.com

Hungary is EU and NATO member, and base on those media/expert standard that claim Ukrainian is democracy or already in transition to Democracy, Hungary is a democratic on recent western standard.

This shown Russia still can create discord among European on what the cost to support Ukraine. More importantly, is Ukraine worth it to support on all cost.

In the end talk is cheap, how far the talk going to implement and how far everyone willing to take the cost, is what the matter.