What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Re what Taiwan can learn --

It matters who wins an election. Trump weakening NATO raised serious doubts as to how seriously NATO would respond to Russian aggression. Trump returning to office would likely fatally undermine NATO, leading to either increased Russian aggression or European re-armament (or both), with more countries deciding to become nuclear powers.

Of course, unlike China and Russia, this isn't actually a lesson Taiwan needs to learn, as it transitioned from autocracy to democracy. Taiwanese know that elections matter and that there is a real difference between the autocracy of Putin's Russia and the democracy of places like the U.S.

Even if Trump does not return, the U.S. is now seen as a far less reliable partner. Yes, elections always matter, but having one of the major U.S. parties renounce its commitments to its allies as the Republican party now does is new. So one thing I'm sure Taiwan has learned is that it can't rely fully on U.S. support. A dramatic renunciation of America's international commitments is always only one election away.

Watching Ukraine beat back Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv I'm sure has also taught Taiwan that it's more likely go get aid if it can show it can first stand on its own. Ukraine was alone at the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. Taiwan should assume that a Chinese attack will have to be met by Taiwan more or less alone, and that it won't receive aid unless it can beat back that initial assault.

The whole "Siege of Kyiv" was a Ukrainian propaganda fake (along with the "Ghost of Kyiv"). The purpose of this war was regime change in Russia. 

Russia invaded Ukraine to create regime change in itself? That makes no sense, Nan.

The west wanted regime change.  That's why they overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014 and started this whole thing in motion. 

In her absence she has regressed tremendously. It’s not even worth it responding to her anymore. No wonder Putin thinks the USA is just a lunatic asylum. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.

(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.  

Does not compute.  Just read the op ed.  You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.

This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?

You are just proving my point. 

I don't what point that might be.

But my point is that you fundamentally misunderstood a very simple post. And then misunderstood my pointing that out to you.

Russia may be experiencing economic growth now.  A wartime economy has that effect.

But countries that have switched to a wartime economy tend to experience difficult post-war transitions.

tjohn said:

Russia may be experiencing economic growth now.  A wartime economy has that effect.

But countries that have switched to a wartime economy tend to experience difficult post-war transitions.

no,no,no. You don't get it.

having a war benefit the economy is only a problem for countries that are not Russia.

DaveSchmidt said:

dave said:

A quick trip to Wikipedia indicates that consulates "remain under the jurisdiction of the host country but are 'inviolable' (the host country's agents may not enter the premises, or detain accredited diplomats)." So as it wasn't Syria's agents entering the consulate I guess it's not in violation?

Nicely done. The facetiousness of the first five words prepared me for the facetiousness of the concluding question.

You're a harsh taskmaster, but I like it.  Getting me to think more before hitting 'add comment' is always appreciated.

PVW said:

How does overthrowing Ukraine's government create regime change in Russia? Did the west make a mistake reading a map and thought they were in Moscow?

How many times do I have to go over this?  Again I have to ask are you just playing dumb?  They helped overthrow the government and installed government friendly to US and then started arming them and sending them to torture the people in the Donbas (also pass laws to harass Russian speakers).  Basically, they were provoking Russia the whole time.  They planned for this war.  If Hillary had won, it probably would have happened a lot sooner (and might have been successful then). They signed two Minsk agreements which they treated as a joke and for biding time to arm and train Ukraine.  As soon as Russia invaded, they started the draconian sanctions which they thought would cripple Russia and remove Putin.  I think maybe they wanted Nalvaney as the Juan Guido character.  This is just the high level overview. I know you have heard this before and you don't believe any of it but I'm  avoiding work right now so I typed it out fast. 

drummerboy said:

tjohn said:

Russia may be experiencing economic growth now.  A wartime economy has that effect.

But countries that have switched to a wartime economy tend to experience difficult post-war transitions.

no,no,no. You don't get it.

having a war benefit the economy is only a problem for countries that are not Russia.

Russia did not expect the war to benefit them.  They were reacting to an existential threat.  The west removed them from SWIFT and they could not trade in US dollars and I don't think they knew what would happen. I think they were very worried. Turns out it was a bad idea to do that because they were able to get in an alternative system and now that system gives competition to SWIFT.  Also, once they started trading in their own currency, other countries started doing it. The dollar may not remain the reserve currency.  It's not so much about benefiting from war as seeing "Karma is a bitch" play out in real life. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.

(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.  

Does not compute.  Just read the op ed.  You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.

This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?

You are just proving my point. 

I don't what point that might be.

But my point is that you fundamentally misunderstood a very simple post. And then misunderstood my pointing that out to you.

I think you are wrong but I'm not going to go back to read it to find out.  

I was right to stay out of this thread for so long.

There is no existental threat to Russia.  It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes. 

nan said:

PVW said:

How does overthrowing Ukraine's government create regime change in Russia? Did the west make a mistake reading a map and thought they were in Moscow?

How many times do I have to go over this?  Again I have to ask are you just playing dumb?  They helped overthrow the government and installed government friendly to US and then started arming them and sending them to torture the people in the Donbas (also pass laws to harass Russian speakers).  Basically, they were provoking Russia the whole time.  They planned for this war.  If Hillary had won, it probably would have happened a lot sooner (and might have been successful then). They signed two Minsk agreements which they treated as a joke and for biding time to arm and train Ukraine.  As soon as Russia invaded, they started the draconian sanctions which they thought would cripple Russia and remove Putin.  I think maybe they wanted Nalvaney as the Juan Guido character.  This is just the high level overview. I know you have heard this before and you don't believe any of it but I'm  avoiding work right now so I typed it out fast.

nan said:

How many times do I have to go over this?  Again I have to ask are you just playing dumb?  They helped overthrow the government and installed government friendly to US and then started arming them and sending them to torture the people in the Donbas (also pass laws to harass Russian speakers).  Basically, they were provoking Russia the whole time.  They planned for this war.  If Hillary had won, it probably would have happened a lot sooner (and might have been successful then). They signed two Minsk agreements which they treated as a joke and for biding time to arm and train Ukraine.  As soon as Russia invaded, they started the draconian sanctions which they thought would cripple Russia and remove Putin.  I think maybe they wanted Nalvaney as the Juan Guido character.  This is just the high level overview. I know you have heard this before and you don't believe any of it but I'm  avoiding work right now so I typed it out fast. 

The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was left out of the above scenario.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.

(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.  

Does not compute.  Just read the op ed.  You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.

This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?

You are just proving my point. 

I don't what point that might be.

But my point is that you fundamentally misunderstood a very simple post. And then misunderstood my pointing that out to you.

I think you are wrong but I'm not going to go back to read it to find out.  

I think I **** know what I was trying to say. And I took pains to make it clear, which is why I had to point out his dishonesty specifically on divisive issues, as opposed to boring, bread and butter issues. Unlike many MAGA politicians, Vance is not stupid.

As for Vance's piece, let me explain.  The only reason to bother to waste time on something that a pol like Vance writes is to find out what he thinks the talking points are that will best curry favor with Trump, and also enrage MAGA voters so that they will vote for MAGA pols.

That is his only intent in vocalizing his opinions. He could give a **** about what is right or wrong, or what is moral or not. And certainly he cares even less about informing the public. Whereas we can turn to other people, like public intellectuals, foreign policy experts, historians, etc, to see how their years of experience could shed light on and help to explain complex issues, one does not turn to people like Vance for this purpose.

Well, people who are actually seeking understanding anyway. People who are just looking to have their own biases confirmed have different reasons.

nohero said:

The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was left out of the above scenario.

Leave it out. Grant all of Nan's premises. Her position still fails on its own merits, since at no point can she demonstrate an attack on Russia.

Nan - are there any other places in the net you post your thoughts on Ukraine?  Just curious.

drummerboy said:

I was right to stay out of this thread for so long.

Me too.

dave said:

There is no existental threat to Russia.  It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes. 

You or the US does not get to decide that.  If Russia put missiles in Mexico and said they were not a threat, I'm sure we would disagree.  The Cuban Missile crisis comes to mind. 

PVW said:

nohero said:

The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was left out of the above scenario.

Leave it out. Grant all of Nan's premises. Her position still fails on its own merits, since at no point can she demonstrate an attack on Russia.

The US took over Ukraine and was training and building up their army with the intention of pulling Russia into a war so they could destroy their economy with sanctions and topple Putin. There was also a lot of talk about Ukraine joining NATO and Zelensky was running around that meeting they have in Munich saying he was going to get nukes.  

It was a huge threat to Russia, not to mention big human rights violation in the Donbas. 

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

How does overthrowing Ukraine's government create regime change in Russia? Did the west make a mistake reading a map and thought they were in Moscow?

How many times do I have to go over this?  Again I have to ask are you just playing dumb?  They helped overthrow the government and installed government friendly to US and then started arming them and sending them to torture the people in the Donbas (also pass laws to harass Russian speakers).  Basically, they were provoking Russia the whole time.  They planned for this war.  If Hillary had won, it probably would have happened a lot sooner (and might have been successful then). They signed two Minsk agreements which they treated as a joke and for biding time to arm and train Ukraine.  As soon as Russia invaded, they started the draconian sanctions which they thought would cripple Russia and remove Putin.  I think maybe they wanted Nalvaney as the Juan Guido character.  This is just the high level overview. I know you have heard this before and you don't believe any of it but I'm  avoiding work right now so I typed it out fast.

I'll ask you to keep going over it as long as you insist on talking nonsense. So, a while.

Kyiv is not in Russia, so even if we accept your false claim that the Revolution of Dignity was a CIA plot, it wasn't an attack on Russia.

The Donbas is part of Ukraine. So even if we accept your false claims about the Donbas, nothing that happened there is an attack on Russia.

The Minsk agreements were about events happening in the Donbas which, again, is not in Russia.

So even if I were to believe everything you've said, that still does not add up to any attack on Russia, for regime change or other any other purposes.

So this was a trap as I suspected.  You pretended to want to hear what I had to say, and knew what I was going to say, so you could attack me with your elitist tone because you have a subscription to the Washington Post (oh woopdedoo) and think you know what really happened.  The joke is on you. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.

(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.  

Does not compute.  Just read the op ed.  You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.

This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?

You are just proving my point. 

I don't what point that might be.

But my point is that you fundamentally misunderstood a very simple post. And then misunderstood my pointing that out to you.

I think you are wrong but I'm not going to go back to read it to find out.  

I think I **** know what I was trying to say. And I took pains to make it clear, which is why I had to point out his dishonesty specifically on divisive issues, as opposed to boring, bread and butter issues. Unlike many MAGA politicians, Vance is not stupid.

As for Vance's piece, let me explain.  The only reason to bother to waste time on something that a pol like Vance writes is to find out what he thinks the talking points are that will best curry favor with Trump, and also enrage MAGA voters so that they will vote for MAGA pols.

That is his only intent in vocalizing his opinions. He could give a **** about what is right or wrong, or what is moral or not. And certainly he cares even less about informing the public. Whereas we can turn to other people, like public intellectuals, foreign policy experts, historians, etc, to see how their years of experience could shed light on and help to explain complex issues, one does not turn to people like Vance for this purpose.

Well, people who are actually seeking understanding anyway. People who are just looking to have their own biases confirmed have different reasons.

Again, you keep going on and on forever about why you won't read a short op ed in the New York Times.  It's like a recurring theme in a comedy.  How many more posts are there going to be on this with even more angles?  

dave said:

You're a harsh taskmaster, but I like it.

One of us is taking me too seriously.

dave said:

There is no existental threat to Russia. It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes.

Also, the West didn’t announce that Russian banks would be removed from SWIFT until two days after the invasion.

nan said:

Russia did not expect the war to benefit them. They were reacting to an existential threat. The west removed them from SWIFT and they could not trade in US dollars and I don't think they knew what would happen.

nan said:

The US took over Ukraine and was training and building up their army with the intention of pulling Russia into a war so they could destroy their economy with sanctions and topple Putin. There was also a lot of talk about Ukraine joining NATO and Zelensky was running around that meeting they have in Munich saying he was going to get nukes.  

It was a huge threat to Russia, not to mention big human rights violation in the Donbas. 

Can you please cite the date that Ukraine attacked Russia? The date the U.S. attacked Russia? Also, sanctions against Russia came about after Russia illegally occupied Crimea; how exactly was overthrowing the Ukrainian government part of a plan to destroy Russia's economy with sanctions, if the sanctions didn't come until after Russia attacked Ukraine?

nan said:

So this was a trap as I suspected.  You pretended to want to hear what I had to say, and knew what I was going to say, so you could attack me with your elitist tone because you have a subscription to the Washington Post (oh woopdedoo) and think you know what really happened.  The joke is on you. 

Not a trap. Or if it is, one that plain English, basic geography, and an understanding that time only flows in one direction should enable you to avoid.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

JD Vance as the voice of reason.

Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?  

we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.

that ain't one.

it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.

Ok, fine.  Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?

I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.

Ok, stay in your bubble. 

sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.

Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed.  It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical.  It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal. 

you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.

(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.  

Does not compute.  Just read the op ed.  You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.

This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.

This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?

You are just proving my point. 

I don't what point that might be.

But my point is that you fundamentally misunderstood a very simple post. And then misunderstood my pointing that out to you.

I think you are wrong but I'm not going to go back to read it to find out.  

I think I **** know what I was trying to say. And I took pains to make it clear, which is why I had to point out his dishonesty specifically on divisive issues, as opposed to boring, bread and butter issues. Unlike many MAGA politicians, Vance is not stupid.

As for Vance's piece, let me explain.  The only reason to bother to waste time on something that a pol like Vance writes is to find out what he thinks the talking points are that will best curry favor with Trump, and also enrage MAGA voters so that they will vote for MAGA pols.

That is his only intent in vocalizing his opinions. He could give a **** about what is right or wrong, or what is moral or not. And certainly he cares even less about informing the public. Whereas we can turn to other people, like public intellectuals, foreign policy experts, historians, etc, to see how their years of experience could shed light on and help to explain complex issues, one does not turn to people like Vance for this purpose.

Well, people who are actually seeking understanding anyway. People who are just looking to have their own biases confirmed have different reasons.

Again, you keep going on and on forever about why you won't read a short op ed in the New York Times.  It's like a recurring theme in a comedy.  How many more posts are there going to be on this with even more angles?  

until you understand how you're being manipulated

I'm doing it as a public service.

nohero said:

nan said:

How many times do I have to go over this?  Again I have to ask are you just playing dumb?  They helped overthrow the government and installed government friendly to US and then started arming them and sending them to torture the people in the Donbas (also pass laws to harass Russian speakers).  Basically, they were provoking Russia the whole time.  They planned for this war.  If Hillary had won, it probably would have happened a lot sooner (and might have been successful then). They signed two Minsk agreements which they treated as a joke and for biding time to arm and train Ukraine.  As soon as Russia invaded, they started the draconian sanctions which they thought would cripple Russia and remove Putin.  I think maybe they wanted Nalvaney as the Juan Guido character.  This is just the high level overview. I know you have heard this before and you don't believe any of it but I'm  avoiding work right now so I typed it out fast. 

The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was left out of the above scenario.

It was a very sketchy, high level overview typed very fast.  I had to cook dinner.  You know what happened in Crimea so you don't need me to explain it and you don't agree with my take anyway.  

nan said:

dave said:

There is no existental threat to Russia.  It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes. 

You or the US does not get to decide that.  If Russia put missiles in Mexico and said they were not a threat, I'm sure we would disagree.  The Cuban Missile crisis comes to mind. 

Putting missiles in Cuba was certainly a hostile act by the USSR, but doesn't work well as an analogy as there was no similar hosting of nuclear missiles by the U.S. in Ukraine. Cuba simply allying itself with the USSR, as Ukraine has done with the U.S., was not an attack against the U.S.

DaveSchmidt said:

Also, the West didn’t announce that Russian banks would be removed from SWIFT until two days after the invasion.

nan said:

Russia did not expect the war to benefit them. They were reacting to an existential threat. The west removed them from SWIFT and they could not trade in US dollars and I don't think they knew what would happen.

Right, the sanctions came after the invasion.  That's the usual sequence. 

nan said:

You or the US does not get to decide that. If Russia put missiles in Mexico and said they were not a threat, I'm sure we would disagree. The Cuban Missile crisis comes to mind.

And if the U.S. invaded Mexico under those conditions, you’d be leading the call for Mexican concessions.

Isn’t it long past time to retire this analogy?