5 ms·

> 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

by 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?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- racional 2y ago
  It's absolutely just a country like us, the fact that you need to ask a question like this ... Actually it's a very different place. And this seems to be one of the missing pieces of your analysis here.
  - brabel 2y ago
    Have you been there? I have, and I think anyone who has wouldn't say they're very different than us (unless you haven't been to many other countries to have a "reference" for what "different" means). I have been to Belarus as well, multiple times. I can absolutely guarantee to you that the people are the same as in the USA or EU. They're different in only the most superficial things. They also love their families, they also love to buy things, to have fun on the beach, to cook a nice meal. Where they differ is on their religion and culture, though they're about as close to America in that regard as most other EU nations (because like them, they're also mostly Christians and having a "general" European culture and values, they're very much close to the USA, whose culture is so influenced by that European culture due to its population being majority European descendants). You may argue "but politics are so different" but that's not an argument for "they're not a country like us". Politics can change easily because you don't need everyone to change, like with culture... is Spain not the same country since it became a democracy in as recently as 1976?? So I would say it's a huge mistake to try to classify a country by its politics. The Russians may eventually come around to a more democratic system, but like with the Chinese, they may prefer not to. Admitting that there are other possible systems that may be beneficial to the people is important for us in the West, after all, according to our own values, diversity is a good thing, isn't it? It's difficult and the West has a history of not accepting that other cultures may not want to be like themselves (in that respect, it's hard to differentiate us today from the jesuits in the past, we're basically doing the same thing, just instead of Catholicism we're now exporting "democratic values" or whatever), and even though we've learned that trying to force-civilize others is not the greatest idea, we still don't seem to accept we may not be the pinnacle of civilization.
racional 2y ago
Germany and France blocked it, indirectly making the war in 2014 and this one possible. Well, that's speculative. If the move had been green-lighted it could have triggered a spontaneous kinetic/punitive action of some sort (as Putin would have to look like he's "doing something"). Which would have led to who knows what. 100 percent on the money, everything else you said.
- ajuc 2y ago
  Worst case would just look like what happened anyway. Best case is no wars in 2014 and 2022 and hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
  - racional 2y ago
    Disagree as to worst case. We just don't know how the Yushchenko government (let alone whoever his successor may have been after 2010) would have handled the situation. And without sufficient time to integrate properly -- the accession would have been essentially a bluff, and interpreted by Putin (though his sockpuppet Medvedev, if the latter was still in place) accordingly. Had he full-on invaded shortly thereafter -- Ukraine definitely would not have fared as well as it did in 2022 (due to the partial state of integration, and the fact that didn't have the 8 years of invaluable training in the field that it had by 2022). Even if it was a clusterfuck operation like the initial SMO. Recall how quickly the Crimea defense fell apart in 2014 (for the simple reason it was entirely unprepared). Tactical nuke risk would have been significantly higher if NATO units were involved, especially if they were blitzkrieging. One can see many scenarios unfolding - many of them quite bad.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      It was 2008. Back then Russia had problems conquering Georgia (and backed off when 3 EU politicians flew to Tbilisi during the war). Even in 2014 with all the corruption in Ukrainian army and all the preparations (remember that Yanukovych was blackmailed by Putin in 2013 to stop the EU agreement according to a parliament member from his party) - so Putin had prepared for at least 1 year - once Ukraine started the ATO (anti-terrorist operation) - they quickly regained several territories till Russia sent another wave of "volunteers" in "nothern wind" operation. It's very unlikely Russia would be able to do anything quickly in 2008 that would be anywhere close to what it did with year of advance planning in 2014. And it's very, very unlikely that it would have ended up worse for Ukraine somehow. IMHO Russia would just do nothing, cause the risk/effect calculation would be much worse for them had Ukraine already be in NATO. It's time to accept that the west fucked up in 2008.

by ajuc 2y ago

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?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
racional 2y ago
It's absolutely just a country like us, the fact that you need to ask a question like this ... Actually it's a very different place. And this seems to be one of the missing pieces of your analysis here.
- brabel 2y ago
  Have you been there? I have, and I think anyone who has wouldn't say they're very different than us (unless you haven't been to many other countries to have a "reference" for what "different" means). I have been to Belarus as well, multiple times. I can absolutely guarantee to you that the people are the same as in the USA or EU. They're different in only the most superficial things. They also love their families, they also love to buy things, to have fun on the beach, to cook a nice meal. Where they differ is on their religion and culture, though they're about as close to America in that regard as most other EU nations (because like them, they're also mostly Christians and having a "general" European culture and values, they're very much close to the USA, whose culture is so influenced by that European culture due to its population being majority European descendants). You may argue "but politics are so different" but that's not an argument for "they're not a country like us". Politics can change easily because you don't need everyone to change, like with culture... is Spain not the same country since it became a democracy in as recently as 1976?? So I would say it's a huge mistake to try to classify a country by its politics. The Russians may eventually come around to a more democratic system, but like with the Chinese, they may prefer not to. Admitting that there are other possible systems that may be beneficial to the people is important for us in the West, after all, according to our own values, diversity is a good thing, isn't it? It's difficult and the West has a history of not accepting that other cultures may not want to be like themselves (in that respect, it's hard to differentiate us today from the jesuits in the past, we're basically doing the same thing, just instead of Catholicism we're now exporting "democratic values" or whatever), and even though we've learned that trying to force-civilize others is not the greatest idea, we still don't seem to accept we may not be the pinnacle of civilization.

racional 2y ago

Germany and France blocked it, indirectly making the war in 2014 and this one possible. Well, that's speculative. If the move had been green-lighted it could have triggered a spontaneous kinetic/punitive action of some sort (as Putin would have to look like he's "doing something"). Which would have led to who knows what. 100 percent on the money, everything else you said.

ajuc 2y ago
Worst case would just look like what happened anyway. Best case is no wars in 2014 and 2022 and hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
- racional 2y ago
  Disagree as to worst case. We just don't know how the Yushchenko government (let alone whoever his successor may have been after 2010) would have handled the situation. And without sufficient time to integrate properly -- the accession would have been essentially a bluff, and interpreted by Putin (though his sockpuppet Medvedev, if the latter was still in place) accordingly. Had he full-on invaded shortly thereafter -- Ukraine definitely would not have fared as well as it did in 2022 (due to the partial state of integration, and the fact that didn't have the 8 years of invaluable training in the field that it had by 2022). Even if it was a clusterfuck operation like the initial SMO. Recall how quickly the Crimea defense fell apart in 2014 (for the simple reason it was entirely unprepared). Tactical nuke risk would have been significantly higher if NATO units were involved, especially if they were blitzkrieging. One can see many scenarios unfolding - many of them quite bad.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    It was 2008. Back then Russia had problems conquering Georgia (and backed off when 3 EU politicians flew to Tbilisi during the war). Even in 2014 with all the corruption in Ukrainian army and all the preparations (remember that Yanukovych was blackmailed by Putin in 2013 to stop the EU agreement according to a parliament member from his party) - so Putin had prepared for at least 1 year - once Ukraine started the ATO (anti-terrorist operation) - they quickly regained several territories till Russia sent another wave of "volunteers" in "nothern wind" operation. It's very unlikely Russia would be able to do anything quickly in 2008 that would be anywhere close to what it did with year of advance planning in 2014. And it's very, very unlikely that it would have ended up worse for Ukraine somehow. IMHO Russia would just do nothing, cause the risk/effect calculation would be much worse for them had Ukraine already be in NATO. It's time to accept that the west fucked up in 2008.