3 ms·

I don’t think the US wanted Ukraine to get invaded either. But they did want Ukraine to be NATO-aligned in spite of the harmful effect towards Russia’s security

by blub 5y ago

I don’t think the US wanted Ukraine to get invaded either. But they did want Ukraine to be NATO-aligned in spite of the harmful effect towards Russia’s security and despite its warnings. Morally that might make sense, but geopolitically it was a risky and cynical move. If it pushes Russia and China into a stronger alliance it may yet backfire in spite of weakening Russia and making the EU more dependent on the US. The very aggressive sanctions (well, aside from gas, oil, etc) cannot be explained by the European history of accepting Russian oligarchs and money of dubious origin nor by the fate of Ukraine which let’s be honest no government in the EU really cared about so far. The more plausible explanation was that the US told the EU that they won’t defend them unless they show a strong united front against Russia.

formerly_proven 5y ago
> But they did want Ukraine to be NATO-aligned You know who wanted to be NATO-aligned? Ukraine. Ukraine wanted to be NATO-aligned so much that they put it in their constitution. > in spite of the harmful effect towards Russia’s security Codespeak for "Russia would like to reserve the right to annex neighbors at their own leisure back into the federation and/or have a few more puppet states". Next you are going to tell me NATO promised not to expand eastwards. > The very aggressive sanctions (well, aside from gas, oil, etc) cannot be explained by the European history of accepting Russian oligarchs and money of dubious origin nor by the fate of Ukraine which let’s be honest no government in the EU really cared about so far. EU and related states very openly threatened far-reaching sanctions and other consequences if Russia were to invade prior to the invasion. The reason the response is strong is because it makes a large difference to Europe if you are invading Georgia or if you are invading Ukraine. > The more plausible explanation was that the US told the EU that they won’t defend them unless they show a strong united front against Russia. Nothing like a good ol' "only the US has agency" meme to finish your TED talk.
- blub 5y ago
  Don’t understand the hostile tone. Are you on some moral crusade that you forgot to announce? When your neighbor’s Russia, China or the US what one wants is perhaps less important than what the superpower next door wants. Ukraine and the EU knew this and wouldn’t have tried anything on their own unless the US wouldn’t have offered guarantees. Except unfortunately for Ukraine nobody can guarantee that Russia won’t bomb them to bits and whatever happens they’ll continue to have an angry neighbor with thousands of nuclear weapons on their doorstep. There is no such right to annex neighbors, that idea is silly. Superpowers do whatever they can get away with and Russia can certainly invade Ukraine, even if the outcome remains to be seen - could be anything from loss of territory to global destruction. The EU threatened things, but there was lots of disagreement internally and there’s still disagreement around for example energy imports. It makes a difference, but it’s no secret that the EU expected Ukraine to quickly fall and afterwards it would have been sanctions as usual.

by blub 5y ago

formerly_proven 5y ago

> But they did want Ukraine to be NATO-aligned You know who wanted to be NATO-aligned? Ukraine. Ukraine wanted to be NATO-aligned so much that they put it in their constitution. > in spite of the harmful effect towards Russia’s security Codespeak for "Russia would like to reserve the right to annex neighbors at their own leisure back into the federation and/or have a few more puppet states". Next you are going to tell me NATO promised not to expand eastwards. > The very aggressive sanctions (well, aside from gas, oil, etc) cannot be explained by the European history of accepting Russian oligarchs and money of dubious origin nor by the fate of Ukraine which let’s be honest no government in the EU really cared about so far. EU and related states very openly threatened far-reaching sanctions and other consequences if Russia were to invade prior to the invasion. The reason the response is strong is because it makes a large difference to Europe if you are invading Georgia or if you are invading Ukraine. > The more plausible explanation was that the US told the EU that they won’t defend them unless they show a strong united front against Russia. Nothing like a good ol' "only the US has agency" meme to finish your TED talk.

blub 5y ago
Don’t understand the hostile tone. Are you on some moral crusade that you forgot to announce? When your neighbor’s Russia, China or the US what one wants is perhaps less important than what the superpower next door wants. Ukraine and the EU knew this and wouldn’t have tried anything on their own unless the US wouldn’t have offered guarantees. Except unfortunately for Ukraine nobody can guarantee that Russia won’t bomb them to bits and whatever happens they’ll continue to have an angry neighbor with thousands of nuclear weapons on their doorstep. There is no such right to annex neighbors, that idea is silly. Superpowers do whatever they can get away with and Russia can certainly invade Ukraine, even if the outcome remains to be seen - could be anything from loss of territory to global destruction. The EU threatened things, but there was lots of disagreement internally and there’s still disagreement around for example energy imports. It makes a difference, but it’s no secret that the EU expected Ukraine to quickly fall and afterwards it would have been sanctions as usual.