6 ms·

If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 neither this war nor the war in 2014 would have happened. Russia won't invade Finland nor Sweden despite them joining

by ajuc 2y ago

If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 neither this war nor the war in 2014 would have happened. Russia won't invade Finland nor Sweden despite them joining NATO. In fact Russia moved all units from Finnish border to Ukraine as Finland joined NATO :) If you force Ukraine to give up some territories to Russia and stop the war now - you're only making sure Russia invades in a few years again after establishing new bases, refilling stocks and drafting people from new territories to army. This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. You're not saving any lives, you're just making the next war easier for Putin. As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

brabel 2y ago
> This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. That's a distorted view of reality. In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. When the 2014 revolution happened, remember that there was a pro-Russia elected president in Ukraine. The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution. Most of the Donbas was/is strongly pro-Russian (they had been voting for Pro-Russian governments since the independence of Ukraine from the USSR, just check some maps of pre-2014 elections results by Ukrainian region). So, no, that's not what happened in 2014 at all, and I don't understand why some people are repeating this narrative uncritically. > As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The USA had no business in those countries. That has nothing to do with the situation in Russia, where they see Ukraine alignment as absolutely essential for their defense strategy. Vietnam is exactly in the opposite side of the world from the USA. Ukraine is basically the gate to the Russian heartlands. If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. It's such a completely different situation that I must ask if you're trolling?
- ajuc 2y ago
  > In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. Jake Sullivan (American diplomat) said in an interview with Mikhail Zygar recently that he was in the room when it was talked about. Ukraine was in favour. Eastern Europe was in favour. USA was in favour. Germany and France blocked it, indirectly making the war in 2014 and this one possible. > The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution This is Russian POV. It's not the truth. Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2003. It blackmailed Yanukovych in 2013. It doesn't care about formalities, it cares about owning Ukraine. > If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. Nobody wants to invade Russia and you know it perfectly well. Russia knows it too (that's why they moved the army from Finnish border and from Kaliningrad Oblast). You can shell Sankt Petersburg from Finland using regular artillery. If anything - Finland entering NATO is a much worse military problem for Russia than Ukraine. Yet somehow Russia was fine with it, but Ukraine is just impossible :) It's just an excuse, the real reason Russia invaded Ukraine twice is just imperialism. And they can be cured from it. They just need to lose their imperial war, like all the other empires. > The USA had no business in those countries. And neither does Russia in Ukraine. Decide for yourself - is Russia bloodthirsty enough to start nuclear war over Ukraine, or is it "just another country like us". You can't have it both ways.
  - brabel 2y ago
    > This is Russian POV. It's not the truth. Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2003. It blackmailed Yanukovych in 2013. It doesn't care about formalities, it cares about owning Ukraine. How can you be so sure? It's true that Russia was trying to influence Ukrainian politics for a long time - and Ukrainian politics have always been hugely determined by what they can do without pissing off Russia too much - as they always feared an invasion could happen if they did. They lost that fear, slowly, over the 20 years or so after independence... It was literally a bet by the pro-EU politicians to try to join NATO before Russia felt like it was necessary to intervene... We know that because you can easily read about the debates pre-2014 in Ukrainian politics. It was obvious to most observers that the Maidan Revolution was extremely dangerous for Ukraine, as it was clearly going to piss off Russia (an elected leader replaced by revolution, with the open support of the West - and no, this is not Russian propaganda, just read about the USA's pronouncements at the time, here for example: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea?s=08 https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia...). You may say Russia has zero right to be pissed off, to be trying to influence a neighbouring, independent country, and I would agree in principle. But the fact that most people in the West (not all, a lot of geopolitics analysts keep repeating this) are unable to even comprehend why the Russians think it's absolutely fundamental for them that Ukraine does not align completely with NATO and the EU is very arrogant. Just think how the US might react if Mexico decided to align with Russia, and join some sort of Russian military alliance. OR maybe more realistically, with China. Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine That's basically the USA saying that they absolutely have the right to interfere on the whole Western Hemisphere, which they have done to great effect the whole 20th and 21st centuries, many times favouring the dictators, not the democratic leaders (if you don't know about this, I don't blame you, it's not well known by American people, though this is accepted fact by most scholars, check this article for an extensive list of American interventionism on Chile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_...). I don't bring this up to make a "what about" argument against the West, but to show that it's at least hypocritical of the Western countries to claim that Russia must not interfere in any way on its closest neighbour. > it cares about owning Ukraine Hm, let's not go down to such kind of simplistic argument. Let me respond the way you did to me: that's not the truth. > is Russia bloodthirsty enough to start nuclear war over Ukraine, or is it "just another country like us". It's absolutely just a country like us, the fact that you need to ask a question like this shows that you're not even arguing in good faith. Just like they would defend whatever they consider their borders (and they do consider, now, the Donbas to be part of Russia itself, as you should know) with any means necessary, so would any of our countries in the West, wouldn't we?

by ajuc 2y ago

brabel 2y ago

> This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. That's a distorted view of reality. In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. When the 2014 revolution happened, remember that there was a pro-Russia elected president in Ukraine. The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution. Most of the Donbas was/is strongly pro-Russian (they had been voting for Pro-Russian governments since the independence of Ukraine from the USSR, just check some maps of pre-2014 elections results by Ukrainian region). So, no, that's not what happened in 2014 at all, and I don't understand why some people are repeating this narrative uncritically. > As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The USA had no business in those countries. That has nothing to do with the situation in Russia, where they see Ukraine alignment as absolutely essential for their defense strategy. Vietnam is exactly in the opposite side of the world from the USA. Ukraine is basically the gate to the Russian heartlands. If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. It's such a completely different situation that I must ask if you're trolling?

ajuc 2y ago
> In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. Jake Sullivan (American diplomat) said in an interview with Mikhail Zygar recently that he was in the room when it was talked about. Ukraine was in favour. Eastern Europe was in favour. USA was in favour. Germany and France blocked it, indirectly making the war in 2014 and this one possible. > The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution This is Russian POV. It's not the truth. Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2003. It blackmailed Yanukovych in 2013. It doesn't care about formalities, it cares about owning Ukraine. > If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. Nobody wants to invade Russia and you know it perfectly well. Russia knows it too (that's why they moved the army from Finnish border and from Kaliningrad Oblast). You can shell Sankt Petersburg from Finland using regular artillery. If anything - Finland entering NATO is a much worse military problem for Russia than Ukraine. Yet somehow Russia was fine with it, but Ukraine is just impossible :) It's just an excuse, the real reason Russia invaded Ukraine twice is just imperialism. And they can be cured from it. They just need to lose their imperial war, like all the other empires. > The USA had no business in those countries. And neither does Russia in Ukraine. Decide for yourself - is Russia bloodthirsty enough to start nuclear war over Ukraine, or is it "just another country like us". You can't have it both ways.
- brabel 2y ago
  > This is Russian POV. It's not the truth. Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2003. It blackmailed Yanukovych in 2013. It doesn't care about formalities, it cares about owning Ukraine. How can you be so sure? It's true that Russia was trying to influence Ukrainian politics for a long time - and Ukrainian politics have always been hugely determined by what they can do without pissing off Russia too much - as they always feared an invasion could happen if they did. They lost that fear, slowly, over the 20 years or so after independence... It was literally a bet by the pro-EU politicians to try to join NATO before Russia felt like it was necessary to intervene... We know that because you can easily read about the debates pre-2014 in Ukrainian politics. It was obvious to most observers that the Maidan Revolution was extremely dangerous for Ukraine, as it was clearly going to piss off Russia (an elected leader replaced by revolution, with the open support of the West - and no, this is not Russian propaganda, just read about the USA's pronouncements at the time, here for example: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea?s=08 https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia...). You may say Russia has zero right to be pissed off, to be trying to influence a neighbouring, independent country, and I would agree in principle. But the fact that most people in the West (not all, a lot of geopolitics analysts keep repeating this) are unable to even comprehend why the Russians think it's absolutely fundamental for them that Ukraine does not align completely with NATO and the EU is very arrogant. Just think how the US might react if Mexico decided to align with Russia, and join some sort of Russian military alliance. OR maybe more realistically, with China. Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine That's basically the USA saying that they absolutely have the right to interfere on the whole Western Hemisphere, which they have done to great effect the whole 20th and 21st centuries, many times favouring the dictators, not the democratic leaders (if you don't know about this, I don't blame you, it's not well known by American people, though this is accepted fact by most scholars, check this article for an extensive list of American interventionism on Chile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_...). I don't bring this up to make a "what about" argument against the West, but to show that it's at least hypocritical of the Western countries to claim that Russia must not interfere in any way on its closest neighbour. > it cares about owning Ukraine Hm, let's not go down to such kind of simplistic argument. Let me respond the way you did to me: that's not the truth. > is Russia bloodthirsty enough to start nuclear war over Ukraine, or is it "just another country like us". It's absolutely just a country like us, the fact that you need to ask a question like this shows that you're not even arguing in good faith. Just like they would defend whatever they consider their borders (and they do consider, now, the Donbas to be part of Russia itself, as you should know) with any means necessary, so would any of our countries in the West, wouldn't we?