i decided that instead of counter-argumenting the same nonsensical non-arguments again and again, i will be showing more initiative and occasionally putting a (hot iron) topic on a pedestal and try to clean up the shit that is going on there. facts: - russia is claiming that there was a promise that the nato will not go further into the eastern regions and that there will never be stationed rockets, etc. however they know that this was specifically meant about the ex-gdr, poland and tchech republic, areas where this is in fact not the case. - russia is using the "but there are nato forces stationed in ukraine" as an argument to move their soldiers to the border because it feels "threatened". reality check: those soldiers (roughly a few thousand if at all) are there because russia invaded the crimea. those forces are not a thread to russia at all, their numbers are minimal. in fact, their only purpose is to have the fail safe of "article 5 of the nato treaty" meaning basically that they are able to help because nato forces where attacked in case of an invasion. - russia agreed and signed in the 90ies that any country can choose their allies and partners the way they want. reality check: now they act like ukraine or any other of their neighbours are not allowed to do so but have to fall in line with this russian lead security treaty which was kinda created to be a counter part to nato but isnt exactly one since its covering much way wider array of resorts, e.g. drug trafficking. - russia has been coming up with a list of demands and marked them as non-negotiable. not sure about you, but in my book thats no way treaties are worked out ever. nato on the other hand is trying to negotiate, which is also noticed by russias neighbour states. heres what i think: russia still kinda caught up in a cold war mindset and they think that by showing off their strength their neighbour states (most of them ex sowjet union) will back down and keeping up with a russian friendly politics or dont mind the obvious influence kreml is taking onto these states. russia also thinks that a superpower (im not willing to discuss if they are or not... who cares anyway?) has to have some kind of influential region around itself, especially if said region is former part of itself. you can easily read that from their acting. if russia really decides to invade ukraine, then the consequences would be very drastic for russia i think, not so much on the military but much more on the economic side. nordstream 2 is only one thing that comes to mind immediately. plus, their biggest problem is this: by acting like the big bully they eventually will end up in the exact scenario they fear the most and try to counter with their current behaviour of threatening: armed neighbour states, some of them backed by nato which would not have happened otherwise. see finland for example where they now openly discuss a possible nato entrance despite being kinda opposed basically forever. something similiar happens in sweden. russia invading crimea or helping destabilizing donbass region isnt helping portraying them as a trustful partner, but rather as a threat. diclaimer: im not providing links to what i stated as facts because they are so obvious that they can be found with the first google hit. also, you gotta invest a little bit and not only consume. if you cant do that, youre wrong here anyway and should rather go and talk about the most uninteresting top20 lists of all times. obv this is apart from the actual facts my (western) view on this situation that is probably more influenced by western experts than russian ones but since russia is not really a democracy russian experts should be taken with care anyway, so i rather search my "luck" and expertise in those from all over the world. tl;dr: no chance. do the work.