11 ms·

I am for keeping Ukraine as a neutral buffer separating Russia and the US. NATO proposed Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO in 2005-2008, in the clear k

I am for keeping Ukraine as a neutral buffer separating Russia and the US. NATO proposed Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO in 2005-2008, in the clear knowledge that this would destabilize the situation. France, Germany, and others were against this. The proposal began the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJBQikfYyKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJBQikfYyKs We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych. This war is about more than just Putin. Research: George Friedman, Peter Zeihan, John Mearsheimer, Peter Hitchens, Noam Chomsky (more of an ideologue), etc. on this issue. You can start on YouTube OR read their books, I guess. These are all PhDs or experts in some fashion that I just cited. You could just read their books too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Zeihan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Zeihan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky "F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine. Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy". Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.

mysecretaccount 5y ago
Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? I'm not a Russian apologist, just a fan of history, and am trying to understand why so many people reject this narrative. edit: Now I am downvoted too just for asking..? This just makes me think that there is not a solid answer?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  For one thing, NATO does not propose membership, something Russians seem to think though [0]. Countries apply to join. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      The key point, whatever incentives exist, is that it was the choice of Ukraine. Fundamentally they had to take the first official step.
      - mysecretaccount 5y ago
        This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        And NATO could just as easily have said no. The issue isn't Ukraine's interest, but NATO's posture towards accepting Ukraine's application.
  - skissane 5y ago
    According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that. I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here? (Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)

mysecretaccount 5y ago

Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? I'm not a Russian apologist, just a fan of history, and am trying to understand why so many people reject this narrative. edit: Now I am downvoted too just for asking..? This just makes me think that there is not a solid answer?

MattGaiser 5y ago
For one thing, NATO does not propose membership, something Russians seem to think though [0]. Countries apply to join. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- tehjoker 5y ago
  That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    The key point, whatever incentives exist, is that it was the choice of Ukraine. Fundamentally they had to take the first official step.
    - mysecretaccount 5y ago
      This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      And NATO could just as easily have said no. The issue isn't Ukraine's interest, but NATO's posture towards accepting Ukraine's application.
- skissane 5y ago
  According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that. I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here? (Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)