[dunkelheit]

> The lie is that Ukraine wasn't even considered for NATO membership and would be ineligible due to lack of territorial integrity ( Donbas and Crimea). NATO and Ukraine didn't claim Russia was bluffing, Ukraine refused to surrender their autonomy by promising they'll never join NATO.

Isn't it a bit contradictory? If Ukraine can't join NATO, then promising it won't is irrelevant. Rather, it was their stated goal to somehow resolve the territorial intergrity question and then join NATO. So ineligibility was just a problem to resolve, not an insurmountable obstacle. And of course increasing military cooperation can be done without joining.

I agree that "calling bluff" is not the best word. Rather, it was politically infeasible for both Ukraine (runs counter to their stated goals) and the West (looks too similar to what Chamberlain did) to enter into an agreement with Russia. So it didn't happen.

> And of course, the real lie is that Russia was going to war no matter what. Leaked conversations of Kadyrov show that Russia was prepared to go in since last year, and the negotiations asking for impossible things was just a distraction. Like the Austrians did with Serbia in WWI.

Even if the leaks are true, how does it prove that the invasion was inevitable? Yes, Russia was preparing for war to make the threat credible and this preparation included making detailed plans. Doesn't mean that Putin couldn't scrap those plans.

> Please go whatabout something else, people are literally getting slaughtered over the delusions of an ageing autocrat who has lost touch with reality.

Your comment was better without this addition.