3 ms·

I think he's referring to the Maidan revolution pushed in the region back in 2014. They led them with promises of NATO/EU membership, and then left them hangi

by starkd 5y ago

I think he's referring to the Maidan revolution pushed in the region back in 2014. They led them with promises of NATO/EU membership, and then left them hanging when war finally broke out. You can reasonably conclude they had no intention to actually fight it out. https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia?s=r https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia...

edgyquant 5y ago
It’s cute you blame the west for this. Russia started an asymmetric war with Ukraine specifically because it knew NATO won’t except a new member until they shore up border disputes etc. Again this is the international relations equivalent of beating your wife because she wanted a divorce. It doesn’t make her being beat her fault or her new boyfriends. It’s your fault for beating her up.
- starkd 5y ago
  It's interesting you read that as blaming the West. The article literally starts out calling the Russian invasion of Ukrain illegal and condemns it unequivocally. That doesn't mean the West's actions were not escalatory. When you lead a country with promises of NATO membership and protection, actions you KNOW will be provocative, you better be prepared to defend it. The West did not do this.
smsm42 5y ago
War didn't "break out". It wasn't some natural disaster that just happened with no fault of anybody. Putin waged the war, because he felt he could take Ukraine for himself and nobody would stop him. The evil will of Russian government, determined to deny Ukrainian people the rights to freedom and self-determination, combined with weakness of the West, and continued strategy of appeasement (has it ever worked?), led to it. It's as much "broke out" as you'd say "she left her home without a gun, and a rape broke out".
- starkd 5y ago
  The West was wholly unprepared for this scenario. Even though they led them to believe NATO would be there for them (without specifically offering it). When you wage a campaign with the intended effect of bringing it into NATO, something you know is going to be provocative, you should be very prepared to defend it. This is a collosal failure of diplomacy.

by starkd 5y ago

edgyquant 5y ago

It’s cute you blame the west for this. Russia started an asymmetric war with Ukraine specifically because it knew NATO won’t except a new member until they shore up border disputes etc. Again this is the international relations equivalent of beating your wife because she wanted a divorce. It doesn’t make her being beat her fault or her new boyfriends. It’s your fault for beating her up.

starkd 5y ago
It's interesting you read that as blaming the West. The article literally starts out calling the Russian invasion of Ukrain illegal and condemns it unequivocally. That doesn't mean the West's actions were not escalatory. When you lead a country with promises of NATO membership and protection, actions you KNOW will be provocative, you better be prepared to defend it. The West did not do this.

smsm42 5y ago

War didn't "break out". It wasn't some natural disaster that just happened with no fault of anybody. Putin waged the war, because he felt he could take Ukraine for himself and nobody would stop him. The evil will of Russian government, determined to deny Ukrainian people the rights to freedom and self-determination, combined with weakness of the West, and continued strategy of appeasement (has it ever worked?), led to it. It's as much "broke out" as you'd say "she left her home without a gun, and a rape broke out".

starkd 5y ago
The West was wholly unprepared for this scenario. Even though they led them to believe NATO would be there for them (without specifically offering it). When you wage a campaign with the intended effect of bringing it into NATO, something you know is going to be provocative, you should be very prepared to defend it. This is a collosal failure of diplomacy.