Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Blood Red]

Funny how a "dead nation" after all these years is still the one making the Kremlin write opinion pieces instead of victory speeches. 100's of 1000's of casualties later, 40% of the Black Sea fleet down, 45% of your oil refining capacity knocked out, 44% of your budget currently spent on war, while your population is on edge it all remains quite embarrassing for what was supposed to be the second most capable military in the world.

War time consistently craters births while spiking deaths. The 50% figure is false. According to the UN roughly 25% of Ukrainians are over age 60. The rest of your content and much more was addressed here recently in my reply to the Mendel article from the Spectator. You're welcome to try and break down my rebuttal, but heads up, it will require more gray matter than your usual chest thumping, as you repeat the same tired fallacies over and over while completely ignoring the points previously made by your opponents. Here's the link, and it's post #4522.

What is your solution? Do you think Ukraine can win? Do you think Ukraine will ever join NATO?

[Paulie97]

Since the entire gist of my post is that Mendel, by virtue of her flip-flopping nature, is non-credible, why would you expect me to engage with her, or her purported arguments, in a substantive way? After my directly saying that she is irrelevant, it would be the height of inconsistency for me to treat her as though she were not.

Also, since you're so quick to level accusations of falsity and fallacious logic, it's fair to point out that your statement that I am somehow "disqualifying you" is both false and a quintessential example of the Straw Man Fallacy. If you re-read my post with a bit more care and a bit less nose-out-of-joint-ness, you might notice that I said absolutely nothing about you. Zero, zilch, nada. My entire focus was on Mendel, why her unique personal qualities render her non-credible, and why attention to a non-credible source is a waste. If you choose to take that personally, that says more about you than it does about me.

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/

You're also quite fond of nit-picking and trying to find distinctions without a difference. To wit:

1. "Most of her points relate to public information rather than insider knowledge". Whether public or insider knowledge, the non-credible flip-flopper categorization remains valid.

2. "If Russian propaganda is truly endless and disposable, then ignoring it is exactly what allows it to spread unchallenged". I never said to ignore it. I said Mendel, herself, is worth ignoring. And I specifically said "Debating an argument's substance, or lack thereof, is a separate matter," which you conveniently gloss over. I do have separate opinions about dealing with Russian propaganda, but the Mendel post was solely focused on her.

3. "Your courtroom analogy is false". Actually, it's not. That's because the credibility of a witness is determined independently of the matter at issue. Whether it's criminal, civil, or even small-claims, once a witness is shown to be non-credible they become irrelevant to the proceedings. But, if you prefer to dispense with jurisprudential niceties, the same principle applies outside a court. If a flip-flopping ex-wife, ex-partner, or disgruntled former employee tried to trash-talk you to others, you'd quite naturally (and rightly) raise the issue of non-credibility..

The "a posteriori" move is your escape hatch. You claim you aren't making an a priori ad hominem, that you're just reporting facts about her behavior. But that's a distinction without a difference. Whether you call it a priori or a posteriori, the conclusion is the same: her history disqualifies her claims before you ever look at them. That's still the genetic fallacy wearing a lab coat.

Your courtroom analogy is still wrong. Witness credibility is assessed against the specific testimony — a witness can be unreliable on one point and credible on another. Mendel's arguments are primarily about public information, policy, documented events, statistics, things anyone can check, along with conclusions based on the same. You wholesale dismissed all that waving the disgruntled ex-employee banner which is the genetic fallacy confirmed yet again, same as the perpetual dodge. You never touched her arguments, only her biography.

Your "I never said to ignore it" line is also a dodge. You said attention to a non-credible source is a waste. That's functionally the same as saying ignore it.

On the straw man, fair enough. Disqualify was the wrong word. The point was that calling her a waste of time dismisses the contributions of anyone who engages with her. That part stands.

You're flailing because you can't defend your position without either abandoning it or doubling down on the fallacy. It's tiresome at this point, not to mention the violence you're committing against the bandwidth.

[Paulie97]

And, when such people do a complete 180 turn, flip-flopping from supporter to denigrator, no reasonable person would take anything they say at face value. That's because the very act of flip-flopping is prima facie evidence of a personal agenda and / or vendetta against the person they formerly supported.

Debating an argument's substance, or lack thereof, is a separate matter. But when the very credibility of a witness is the central issue then they haven't even passed the threshold requirements to be taken seriously.

You can't have both. The first quote says nothing she says can be taken at face value. The second says substance is a separate matter, then you're right back to your own contradiction. But if her flip flopping disqualifies everything before you read it, then substance never gets evaluated, so it can't be a separate matter. Pick one.

[Paulie97]

My post was specifically about Mendel. Your post started with a mention of Mendel, but then quickly expanded into a treatise on Russian propaganda, in general. Because my focus throughout has been on Mendel, personally, and her non-credibility, anything beyond that was outside the original scope of my argument and therefore excluded from my response. And, in fairness, since I was replying to your response to my earlier post, I think I'm quite within my rights (in an argumentation sense) to bring the topic back to the parameters I originally set forth. In fact, if any dodging was going on, try looking in the mirror. It was you who side-stepped the central issue of Mendel's non-credibility and sought to enlarge it to include the much broader topic of Russian propaganda. Since I'm perfectly able to keep those two things separate, I simply chose not to follow you down that rabbit-hole.

So, when closely considered, my choice of quote, and my use of bandwidth, was altogether prudential and responsible. While your kvetching about it is rather questionable. Wink.

You quoted two sentences and skipped the rest. The argument presented in the first paragraph was three parts: her content is generic Russian propaganda, it's already circulating in American discourse, and it deserves a response to control the spread. Your post never touches any of that. It only attacks her credibility which is a different question. If you had a rebuttal to the substance, you'd have used it.

[Sirioja]

Now when you know the past or at least try to know the past, know the status quo, you can extrapolate and see where the puck may land.

Here is my opinion of what Ukraine might have done to avoid the conflict long before the financial crisis.

A) remain non-aligned, non-nuclear b) not seeking EU membership, but enter separate trade and migration agreements with EU c) amend the Constitution and become a federal state like the majority of larger countries.

Now the technical and military situation has changed and the NATO infrastructure should not be tolerated on Ukraine's territory. As EU is on its path to transform itself into a military alliance, Ukraine's EU membership has my doubts as well.

Now, mine are only opinions, they are not official position. Well, you can tell my opinions are wrong, ok, time will tell.

Yes, we all understood, after Crimea robbery, not respecting what liar Putin signed, and senile too old Trump who forgot what he told, but Ukrainians should have welcome ex FSB criminal, dictator Putin who fuck elections, threaten with army if You don t vote for him, kill if You oppose, but in dreams, giving a better life to Ukrainians, when nothing is better than freedom. Once more, Ukrainians who are brothers with Russians, but hate Putin. Time for Russia to wake up and make a new Ceacescu end.

[Jmsuttr]

With my post from yesterday you quoted my first two sentences, skipped my whole argument then repeated your same argument over again. That's not engaging, it's dodging. From here try to make a better and more responsible use of your bandwidth. Wink.

My post was specifically about Mendel. Your post started with a mention of Mendel, but then quickly expanded into a treatise on Russian propaganda, in general. Because my focus throughout has been on Mendel, personally, and her non-credibility, anything beyond that was outside the original scope of my argument and therefore excluded from my response. And, in fairness, since I was replying to your response to my earlier post, I think I'm quite within my rights (in an argumentation sense) to bring the topic back to the parameters I originally set forth. In fact, if any dodging was going on, try looking in the mirror. It was you who side-stepped the central issue of Mendel's non-credibility and sought to enlarge it to include the much broader topic of Russian propaganda. Since I'm perfectly able to keep those two things separate, I simply chose not to follow you down that rabbit-hole.

So, when closely considered, my choice of quote, and my use of bandwidth, was altogether prudential and responsible. While your kvetching about it is rather questionable. Wink.

[Jmsuttr]

For starters, your last sentence is the poisoning the well fallacy. You're not only not refuting her claims, but are disqualifying me from engaging with them, while most of her points relate to public information rather than insider knowledge. And it's self-defeating: if Russian propaganda is truly endless and disposable, then ignoring it is exactly what allows it to spread unchallenged. Your angle is also unfalsifiable because it commits the genetic fallacy, as you can dismiss any source you deem tainted out of hand without having to engage with it.

Your courtroom analogy is false. With public political discourse no one's freedom is at stake while there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Different rules of engagement apply within vastly different dynamics. No one's freedom, financial future, or custody is at stake while the evidentiary rules don't transfer. The comparison collapses on it's on weight.

To your credit you seem to try and walk it back here, but then started talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Here's the irony though. Since according to you her credibility is zero and thus her arguments carry zero (non-sequitur), then you've wasted a boatload of "bandwidth" recently arguing against arguing. That was very inconsiderate of you. Wink While I said all of that to say, you aren't engaging, you're dodging.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...oning-the-Well

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...enetic-Fallacy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-false-analogy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...s/Non-Sequitur

Since the entire gist of my post is that Mendel, by virtue of her flip-flopping nature, is non-credible, why would you expect me to engage with her, or her purported arguments, in a substantive way? After my directly saying that she is irrelevant, it would be the height of inconsistency for me to treat her as though she were not.

Also, since you're so quick to level accusations of falsity and fallacious logic, it's fair to point out that your statement that I am somehow "disqualifying you" is both false and a quintessential example of the Straw Man Fallacy. If you re-read my post with a bit more care and a bit less nose-out-of-joint-ness, you might notice that I said absolutely nothing about you. Zero, zilch, nada. My entire focus was on Mendel, why her unique personal qualities render her non-credible, and why attention to a non-credible source is a waste. If you choose to take that personally, that says more about you than it does about me.

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/

You're also quite fond of nit-picking and trying to find distinctions without a difference. To wit:

1. "Most of her points relate to public information rather than insider knowledge". Whether public or insider knowledge, the non-credible flip-flopper categorization remains valid.

2. "If Russian propaganda is truly endless and disposable, then ignoring it is exactly what allows it to spread unchallenged". I never said to ignore it. I said Mendel, herself, is worth ignoring. And I specifically said "Debating an argument's substance, or lack thereof, is a separate matter," which you conveniently gloss over. I do have separate opinions about dealing with Russian propaganda, but the Mendel post was solely focused on her.

3. "Your courtroom analogy is false". Actually, it's not. That's because the credibility of a witness is determined independently of the matter at issue. Whether it's criminal, civil, or even small-claims, once a witness is shown to be non-credible they become irrelevant to the proceedings. But, if you prefer to dispense with jurisprudential niceties, the same principle applies outside a court. If a flip-flopping ex-wife, ex-partner, or disgruntled former employee tried to trash-talk you to others, you'd quite naturally (and rightly) raise the issue of non-credibility. The court scenario was a convenient illustration because of the presumed neutrality of the process, that's all. But the point holds true regardless.

4. Your claim re Genetic and Poisoning-the-Well fallacies assume that I'm making a priori ad hominem statements about Mendel. What you fail to recognize is that I am making a posteriori statements based on her own actions. If her prior actions and behaviors reflect negatively, that's entirely on her. All I am doing is pointing out that behavior, which is factually true and well-established. If anyone wants to treat her as though her personal actions and history don't matter, that's their prerogative. I prefer to (truthfully) call a spade a spade.

But, when all is said and done, everyone is free to give their attention to whomever or whatever they want. Just as I'm equally free to point out why a certain someone or something isn't worth the attention.

[Questner]

Now when you know the past or at least try to know the past, know the status quo, you can extrapolate and see where the puck may land.

Here is my opinion of what Ukraine might have done to avoid the conflict long before the financial crisis.

A) remain non-aligned, non-nuclear b) not seeking EU membership, but enter separate trade and migration agreements with EU c) amend the Constitution and become a federal state like the majority of larger countries.

Now the technical and military situation has changed and the NATO infrastructure should not be tolerated on Ukraine's territory. As EU is on its path to transform itself into a military alliance, Ukraine's EU membership has my doubts as well.

Now, mine are only opinions, they are not official position. Well, you can tell my opinions are wrong, ok, time will tell.

[Sirioja]

I'll push back a little. Mendel is highly biased yes, but her generic Russian talking points are well circulating in American discourse. It's essentially a free for all, unlike the Cold War years when Soviet propaganda was subjected to a lot of institutional monitoring. Today's angle can move under different banners but the script is the same. The common denominator is the tribal signaling through buzzwords like "deep state" and "military industrial complex. " They rarely attempt to even define those terms or prove any causal relationships between that and the start of any wars, yet we know they've bought the tee shirt. Russia's victimization is embraced, while its own "military-industrial complex" and crimes against its own people are completely ignored. Given how well this all has circulated it needs to be called out with counter information.

I'm going to indulge for a moment and give the super short version of the pleas from the Russia sympathizers:

It's time for Ukraine to take a "peace deal" because they can only put pregnant women and old men with canes out of the battlefield. "Surrender and save yourselves!" That's essentially it. The script has been the same for over four years. The failed predictions are legion.

The rebuttals are partly in my previous post which I'll link again below, and I'll restate some of the content here..

But everybody, except blind Russians and too old senile Trump who likes so much his sperm, know Putin is a liar nobody can trust, like for Crimea, Trump forgot. Putin wants ex USSR, not only Donbass, this is why we have to resist versus a so dangerous criminal dictator and Ukrainians hate him, don t want to live under him, when many Russians left under him. And he tries to fuck many elections abroad, when threatening for voting for him.

[Paulie97]

With my post from yesterday you quoted my first two sentences, skipped my whole argument then repeated your same argument over again. That's not engaging, it's dodging. From here try to make a better and more responsible use of your bandwidth. Wink.

[Paulie97]

Critics are what they are, and Russian sympathizers are what they are. Mendel claims insider knowledge but she left government service in 2021, over 5 years ago. Then, after leaving, she turned into a fierce Zelenskyy critic. That puts Mendel squarely in the same category as an ex-wife, disgruntled former employee, or ex-business associate. And, when such people do a complete 180 turn, flip-flopping from supporter to denigrator, no reasonable person would take anything they say at face value. That's because the very act of flip-flopping is prima facie evidence of a personal agenda and / or vendetta against the person they formerly supported.

So, other critics can stand or fall on the merits of their arguments, or they might stand or fall based on other factors, but Mendel has disqualified herself by her own actions. Just as no reasonable juror would give any credibility to an ex-wife's negative testimony against her ex-husband, absent extremely corroborating evidence, in the same way Mendel is a thoroughly unreliable and non-credible witness. Which, as I stated in the subject line, makes her irrelevant.

For starters, your last sentence is the poisoning the well fallacy. You're not only not refuting her claims, but are disqualifying me from engaging with them, while most of her points relate to public information rather than insider knowledge. And it's self-defeating: if Russian propaganda is truly endless and disposable, then ignoring it is exactly what allows it to spread unchallenged. Your angle is also unfalsifiable because it commits the genetic fallacy, as you can dismiss any source you deem tainted out of hand without having to engage with it.

Your courtroom analogy is false. With public political discourse no one's freedom is at stake while there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Different rules of engagement apply within vastly different dynamics. No one's freedom, financial future, or custody is at stake while the evidentiary rules don't transfer. The comparison collapses on it's on weight.

To your credit you seem to try and walk it back here, but then started talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Debating an argument's substance, or lack thereof, is a separate matter.

Here's the irony though. Since according to you her credibility is zero and thus her arguments carry zero (non-sequitur), then you've wasted a boatload of "bandwidth" recently arguing against arguing. That was very inconsiderate of you. Wink While I said all of that to say, you aren't engaging, you're dodging.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...oning-the-Well

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...enetic-Fallacy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-false-analogy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...s/Non-Sequitur

[Xpartan]

Ukraine has been quietly conducting a successful counterattack since May collapsing Russian onslaught on Liman and Kramatorsk.

For twenty months, Russias 20th and 25th Combined Arms Armies ground toward Lyman, a small city in eastern Ukraine that sits on a critical road and railway juncture. By seizing it, Russia would gain a crucial logistics hub to sustain its campaign to encircle the Fortress Belt, the cities anchoring Ukraines defense in Donetsk. But in May, Ukraines 3rd Corps launched Operation Vivaldi. In just a few weeks, Ukraine collapsed the Russian salient, encircled elements of the 2nd and 14th Motorized Rifle Divisions, and liberated up to 250 square kilometers of land.

The Ukrainian corps performed this masterpiece by achieving drone dominance over Russian forces. Provided with two brigades from Ukraines Unmanned Systems Forces, 3rd Corps saturated Russian rear areas with drones. One Russian military blogger reported how a considerable number of Ukrainian Hornet drones, which operate more than 150 kilometers behind Russian lines, attacked river crossings, disrupted logistics, and prevented reinforcements. These strikes isolated the Russian forces and, as their logistics system collapsed, prevented them from receiving the personnel, parts, and energy needed to effectively operate their own drones.

Remarkably, 3rd Corps reported that its forces neutralized Rubicon, Russias elite drone unit, destroying its logistics, ammunition depots, drone launch sites and newly formed units and killing their experienced drone operators. To prevent its complete loss, Russia withdrew Rubicon from the Lyman axis. Blinded, Russia was vulnerable to the Ukrainian counterattack.

AFU acknowledged the operation only in September. The quiet helps because it enables the glorious Russian traditions of never-ever upsetting the boss. Only the victorious reports can find their ways upstairs.

Fortunately for Ukraine, Russian officers overly optimistic reports to their superiors will likely slow Russias response to a breakthrough. False reports of Russian success around Lyman had reached Putin, who bragged about it just as Russian forces there were collapsing. As one Russian source colorfully criticized the Russian chain of command, Is there a guy among youfor f*cks sakewho can tell Uncle Vova (Putin) that his picture isnt actually all that pretty, or are you all just f*cking losers? Ill tell him. Just bring me in, Ill tell him its all gone to sh*t. . . . Were totally f*cked on the Lyman front.

An Overture to Victory: Operation Vivaldi and Ukraine's Path to Battlefield Decision.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/an-overtur...ield-decision/

[Jmsuttr]

I'll push back a little. Mendel is highly biased yes, but her generic Russian talking points are well circulating in American discourse.

Critics are what they are, and Russian sympathizers are what they are. Mendel claims insider knowledge but she left government service in 2021, over 5 years ago. Then, after leaving, she turned into a fierce Zelenskyy critic. That puts Mendel squarely in the same category as an ex-wife, disgruntled former employee, or ex-business associate. And, when such people do a complete 180 turn, flip-flopping from supporter to denigrator, no reasonable person would take anything they say at face value. That's because the very act of flip-flopping is prima facie evidence of a personal agenda and / or vendetta against the person they formerly supported.

So, other critics can stand or fall on the merits of their arguments, or they might stand or fall based on other factors, but Mendel has disqualified herself by her own actions. Just as no reasonable juror would give any credibility to an ex-wife's negative testimony against her ex-husband, absent extremely corroborating evidence, in the same way Mendel is a thoroughly unreliable and non-credible witness. Which, as I stated in the subject line, makes her irrelevant.

Debating an argument's substance, or lack thereof, is a separate matter. But when the very credibility of a witness is the central issue then they haven't even passed the threshold requirements to be taken seriously. Again, IMO, debating anything Mendel-related is a waste of time, effort, and bandwidth. If someone brings up Mendel in a discussion with me, I simply reply that I believe her like I'd believe your ex-wife. It's good for a laugh and it gets the (non-credible = irrelevant) point across.

P.S. Part of the Russian "Firehose of Propaganda" strategy is to put disposable shills out there, like Mendel, and then discard them when they crash and burn, or lose their usefulness. Energy expended against such a shill is energy wasted, as Russia has an unending supply, just like a matryoshka doll.

[Paulie97]

Here's the bottom line: If you're on the jury in a court trial, you're tasked with evaluating the credibility of a witness. Once you find that a witness lacks credibility, what they have to say becomes irrelevant because they've failed the basic test of being believable.

The simple point being that it's a complete waste of time, effort, and bandwidth to try to debate or analyze anything that comes from a non-credible source. There are credible critics out there, but they unfortunately don't fall into the kind of sympathetic echo chamber the pro-Putin crowd would probably prefer.

I'll push back a little. Mendel is highly biased yes, but her generic Russian talking points are well circulating in American discourse. It's essentially a free for all, unlike the Cold War years when Soviet propaganda was subjected to a lot of institutional monitoring. Today's angle can move under different banners but the script is the same. The common denominator is the tribal signaling through buzzwords like "deep state" and "military industrial complex. " They rarely attempt to even define those terms or prove any causal relationships between that and the start of any wars, yet we know they've bought the tee shirt. Russia's victimization is embraced, while its own "military-industrial complex" and crimes against its own people are completely ignored. Given how well this all has circulated it needs to be called out with counter information.

I'm going to indulge for a moment and give the super short version of the pleas from the Russia sympathizers:

It's time for Ukraine to take a "peace deal" because they can only put pregnant women and old men with canes out of the battlefield. "Surrender and save yourselves!" That's essentially it. The script has been the same for over four years. The failed predictions are legion.

The rebuttals are partly in my previous post which I'll link again below, and I'll restate some of the content here.

1. Russia has never offered anything less than demilitarization, neutrality, recognition of annexed territory, and army caps that would leave Ukraine unable to defend itself. That's not a border adjustment. It's handing Putin the keys and hoping he doesn't come back for the furniture. That while 77% of Ukrainians want to fight on, only 12% want to give in to Russian demands.

2. Ukraine, a supposed defeated country is doing a lot of damage. Funny how a "dead nation" after all these years is still the one making the Kremlin write opinion pieces instead of victory speeches. Half a million Russian dead later, 40% of the Black Sea fleet down, 45% of Russian oil refining capacity knocked out, 44% of the Russian budget currently spent on war, while the population remains on edge it all remains quite embarrassing for what was supposed to be the second most capable military in the world.

3. Mendel is recycling the same Russian talking point that's been wrong since 2022, that Ukraine's been running out of men, while the front is still holding. Ukraine's pool of conscription-age men is small — around four million in the territory it still holds — and Russia's is roughly ten times larger. But attrition is not a pure headcount contest. Ukraine has been inflicting disproportionate losses with drones, long-range strikes, and cheaper systems. Russian casualties have run two to three times higher than Ukraine's for most of the war, and in early twenty twenty-six the ratio climbed towards eight to one in some estimates. Russia is also struggling to replace its own losses at the same rate. She's calling for surrender at the exact moment the attrition is working against the side she wants to surrender to.

My thorough version is linked here. Click "View original post. " It remains entirely untouched by the Russia sympathizers.

https://spectator.com/article/zelens...de/?edition=us

Here's my response to the Iuliia Mendel article recently posted by Questner. It's linked again above.

[Jmsuttr]

There's a lot of time and effort spent arguing about whether or not commitments were made to the USSR, and later Russia, with respect to NATO expansion and whether various countries (such as Ukraine) should be barred from NATO membership.

I would respectfully submit that these discussions overlook two essential points.

1. Russia has had a de facto veto over Ukraine membership in NATO for many years. By its own charter, NATO requires unanimous agreement before a new member can be allowed in. Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there were a number of NATO members who would absolutely have blocked Ukrainian membership. That includes not only overtly Russia-friendly countries, like Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria, but also countries like Italy, Germany, and France who would have blocked it on "stability" grounds. There are other countries that might have blocked, for their own reasons (like Poland), but the point is that there was essentially zero chance that Ukraine would ever have attained NATO membership. The only way that might have changed would have been if Russia had altered its position.

Another relevant issue is that involvement in unresolved territorial or jurisdictional disputes is a disqualifying factor for NATO membership. By virtue of Russia's occupation and claims in Crimea and Donbas, they have a separate de facto veto over Ukrainian membership in NATO. No resolution = no membership, and Russia directly controls their side of that circumstance. There is little or nothing Ukraine can do unilaterally to affect any of the above.

2. As with unanimous consent being required for NATO membership decisions, a similar unanimity is required for NATO military action. Since its creation in 1949, NATO military forces have been involved in combat primarily during three specific operations (Serbia-Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the no-fly zone around Libya). None of these were a direct threat against either the USSR or Russia. The idea that unanimous consent would ever have been given for NATO military action against Russia is simply ludicrous on its face. Of course, if there is ever a need to defend NATO against direct Russian aggression, that's a different scenario. But the simple point is that there has never been any realistic possibility that NATO would be able to garner unanimous consent for any non-defensive action against Russia. All the same countries as in #1 (above), and probably even more, would never have agreed.

Bottom line: Ukraine by itself has never posed a threat to Russia. It's smaller in size, population, economy, etc. Any claim by nuclear-armed Russia to be fearful of Ukraine is ludicrous on its face. Russia knows this, so it had to construct a paranoid NATO-threat mythology. But Russia's problem is that this myth is completely debunked by all the points above: NATO's multiple unanimous consent requirements + multiple ways Russia (by itself and via proxies) can exercise a de facto veto over Ukraine in NATO and over any NATO military action against Russia. IMO, Russia's real problem with NATO is that it prevents Russia from acting with impunity. At some point Russia might like to take action against the Baltics, for example, and NATO has a deterrent effect that Russia wishes didn't exist.