Ukraine was ambivalent about joining NATO from 1992 until 2014. Guess what changed its collective mind?
This article is very interesting.
This response prompts the question, “why did Putin want to invade?” Arguing he is nuts or “the heart wants what the heart wants” takes us nowhere. Assessing his objectives with some attention to history opens the door to actually resolving issues without violence. And that requires paying some attention to the US and NATO, with some attention to how their actions could be interpreted by Russia as something other than a wholesome desire to spread peace and McDonald’s to the whole world.
Putin most likely invaded Ukraine because he thought that conquering new territory for Russia would benefit him domestically. Ukraine was just the unlucky country that happened to be the most vulnerable target.
Can you point out which treaties and agreements US/NATO/EU broke, specifically related to USSR/Russia? Genuine question, I’m not being snarky. 'cause I can’t think of any. Not that US doesn’t break agreements (the nuclear deal with Iran or leaving the Kurds in Saddam’s hands come to mind), but when it comes to Europe I think US tends to stick to what it promises.
I fully understand that Putin and Russia feel under siege. For the last 20 years he’s putting out fires all around Russia, in Belarus, Kazakstan, Ucraine, Moldova, Georgia. But, since you’re accusing US and Europe of selective blindness and lack of empathy for Russia’s situation, how about Rusia’s attitude to virtually all its neighbors? It’s Russia paying at all any attention to what these neighbors want?
Why is Putin so surprised no one wants to be Russia’s ally? NATO and EU expanded without a single shot being fired, a single soldier crossing a border uninvited. Is Putin so deluded that he thinks it’s all an American ploy, that all these countries got dragged into NATO against their will?
US’ track record is far from spotless, but for each failed or messed up foreign intervention you can point out at least one with a rather positive outcome. Before the 2nd Iraq war there was the 1st Iraq war; or the Korean war, the Marshall plan, the Berlin air lift. Of course US does things out of (perceived) self interest, but its “business model” includes a significant amount of soft power and (sometimes) attempts at creating win-win situations. EU is a great example of dangling a juicy carrot in front of Eastern Europe, and saying “would you want a piece of this?”. And it’s not easy to get into EU and NATO; countries had to sign agreements with their neighbors renouncing territorial claims - which for Eastern Europe and the Balkans, where everyone has quarrels with everyone else, it’s a huge deal.
Can you point out any positive Russian interventions? Where the countries in question benefited (on either short on long term) from it? Virtually all Russia’s European neighbors exist in their current form because they took advantage of a (temporary) weakness of Russia (the disintegration of USSR or Russian Empire post ww1, or XIX-th century Crimean war). And every time Russia recovered its position of strength, it tried to wipe them out. Does any of it factor into Putin’s calculations? You’d think he knows how it feels to be cornered, dismissed, ignored, run over, since he keeps complaining about others treating Russia unfairly. Does it occur to him that Russia’s foreign policy would be more successful with a different approach?
NATO and EU are not exactly paragons of virtue, but for Eastern Europe they promised security and prosperity, and so far they delivered.
For its neighbors Russia is all stick and no carrot. And for this it has only itself to blame.
You seem to be assuming that Putin has reasonable goals and objectives that can rationally be accommodated. Sometimes people don’t.
Please explain what this untenable situation is. Unfortunately, your constant focus on this makes you sound like a Putin apologist, and simply saying that “Nothing excuses this Russian invasion” does not alter that appearance.
It is understood Putin acting in the name of Russia seeks to regain or influence independent nations which were historically republics that were part of the USSR; with which there are similarities in language and culture. Some newspaper articles claim this nostalgia cannot be understood by Westerners, but it seems straightforward. Perhaps someone can explain it better so I can understand it.
Was Putin primarily interested in peace when he demanded no role for NATO in Ukraine? Or did he think no one would do much, since there was little action when he annexed Crimea and gained a port, and many of the Russian speakers who were in Ukraine? And allowed for a distraction from domestic concerns?
I am confused what serious overtures Putin made for peace before this recent aggression. I am confused as to why the West, other independent satellite and Eastern European nations, a Ukraine without Crimea (which prefers Europe to Russia) or a rules based world order should prefer at all costs to placate Putin rather than considering these actions beyond the pale.
What reasonable things do you suggest the world should have done to avoid this situation, so that there will be peace in our time? So that Putin will act reasonably rather than simply be emboldened to act more?
Let me add another question. If Putin was concerned that NATO was forming an empire by expanding eastwards, why didn’t he approach Ukraine and the other countries that were supposedly being threatened by NATO and offer them a defensive alliance? He could have signed a treaty with Ukraine, guaranteeing their borders and protecting them from any foreign invasion. That would have stopped the NATO expansion that Putin claims is the cause for this war.
I’m immediately reminded of The Lost Cause, where nostalgia for the former Way Of Things is understood (but not supported) by most Americans at least.
Because he has nukes? Not my argument but i’ve seen it raised.
Nuclear weapons are one (of many) reasons why NATO will not likely pledge to defend Ukranian airspace. I think they are probably less of a factor here. Placating Putin might possibly make him feel more empowered to use more aggression.