Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "Hindustan Times" channel.

It’s not like Russia doesn’t already border NATO states. Norway and the Baltic states are NATO, plus Kaliningrad is in the heart of NATO countries. That list looks likely to include Finland soon, which Russia says it’s fine with. Personally I don’t think Russian objectives lie further than the Dniepr in the east, and probably Odessa area in the south. But who really knows?
29
@dna9838 Please show us where Putin says he wants to annexe all of Ukraine. I don’t mean him rambling about Russian “unity” and so forth. I would like to see evidence of his intention to create a greater Russia outside of their present activities in Ukraine. Where can I find that? All I can see is their present intention to annexe those parts of Ukraine they have already announced. As for Georgia, Russian could have taken them over in 2008 - why didn’t they?
3
@Laura_Daniels Ukraine will run out of them sooner.
2
@dna9838 That’s different from saying he said Ukraine “should be a territory of Russia” is it not? He could have meant what you said, but likewise he could also have been rambling, as politicians often do. As for Georgia and Moldova- proof of his intentions there are even more tenuous. As I say (and I note you ignored) if they wanted to invade all of Georgia, they would’ve done it in 2008.
2
@dna9838 If you’re including me as one of your “appeasers” I’m not. I’m stating what I genuinely believe to be the actual situation, as opposed to what I’d like the situation to be. In fact I don’t like Putin and wouldn’t trust him any more than I’d trust many politicians around the world. But that doesn’t matter, the facts on the ground do. Firstly, I’m not buying your one bite at a time theory. Not because I’m an “appeaser” but rather because it palpably doesn’t hold up. Russia knows the west is as opposed to it, and has now sanctioned it, as far as it can, that isn’t new. Russia is very much at nothing to lose stage with the west. So why then, did it not just take Georgia in 2008? What it actually did instead was to militarily intervene and then leave the disputed regions as so-called independent states. It did NOT annexe them. I ask again, if Russia is as you say, why stuff around doing this rather than just annexe them? Your theory doesn’t hold water. As for Moldova and Belarus? Well, I don’t believe Russia is interested in annexing Moldova, but I would agree that could be a possibility in the case of Belarus should it try to take the same path Ukraine and Georgia did. Belarus is seen as being as strategically important to Russia as Ukraine. If they somehow did become prey to Russian oppression I would like to see all diplomatic and economic measures taken to help them (not that we have any left) but I would not intervene militarily. Why? Because I believe that could easily, as it still could in Ukraine, spiral into WW3 and nuclear Armageddon. You may be willing to risk annihilation to help Belarus, I’m not and I reckon I’d be in a majority in that case. Were you as concerned about the fate of the people of Iraq when the west lied it’s way into a full scale invasion (and subsequent destruction) of their country, or did you “let it slide”?
2
@goeast12 Russia’s GDP is between that of Italy and Spain and, as you suggest, it is outgunned by a far bigger, more powerful and wealthier NATO several times over. It wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell against NATO. So why would they start a war with it?
2
The West just isn’t getting this multi-polar thing, are they?
1
@Laura_Daniels That is indeed puzzling, since absolutely nothing I said indicates I think that. Ukraine will run out of troops sooner than Russia because Russia is far bigger. It’s fact, plain and simple. And think about what you say about Russia, if it’s in the state you reckon it is, why on earth are we in the west so paranoid about it? NATO is massively more powerful than Russia, what have we to fear from them?
1
@Laura_Daniels I agree smaller numbers can sometimes beat larger numbers, but usually the opposite is true and I was responding to your point about Russia losing manpower without considering UKR was too, a fact more pertinent considering some believe Russia’s strategy is to destroy Ukrainian military capability. As for your comment completely absolving Ukraine of any guilt for the current situation, you really don’t believe their decision to take Ukraine into NATO had anything to do with this awful situation? You don’t believe their treatment of the people in Donbas, in opposition to the principles of the Minsk Agreement they signed, mattered at all? Russia is not all guilty and Ukraine is not all innocent.
1
@maxhugen Can you evidence that?
1
@dangomes4855 OK, how does - you’re talking shit - sound? The guy spouted off, all I asked for was fact rather than his obviously unsubstantiated opinion. Too much to ask? Even for a “Bot”..?
1
@jamartin005 more and better quality what? Troops? You for sending NATO boots in? Really?
1
@ronlumsden3164 I agree the Russians indirectly “took on” NATO by thwarting its plan for Ukrainian membership, but I don’t believe the Russians would ever be crazy enough to directly take on NATO militarily, unless it attacked them. That is important, because many people either believe, or claim to believe, that Ukraine is some kind of “stepping stone” for Russia, with perhaps Poland next. Hyperbole excluded, where is the evidence for that?
1
@dna9838 Nothing of what you have said “proves” your theories. It’s just opinion, and I would say unfounded opinion. In 2008 Russia could have taken over all of Georgia, what would have stopped them? They didn’t. That isn’t relevant to you? OK, let’s try to make your opinions concrete. Assuming you believe (do you?) Russia will annexe all of Ukraine (which I don’t) and then tries to enter any NATO country, what do you reckon happens next?
1
blitz weapons cost - a lot..!
1