7 ms·

The problem is that posturing can turn into reality (which is perhaps what you're trying to say). I do think Russia was posturing. They began seeking negotiatio

The problem is that posturing can turn into reality (which is perhaps what you're trying to say). I do think Russia was posturing. They began seeking negotiations 4 days after they invaded, and outside of an absurd longshot decapitation strike all of their early maneuvering was much more performative than military in nature. With Ukraine's entry into NATO appearing increasingly imminent, they likely felt they could force matters with a semi-bluff thinking they could catch Ukraine by surprise. Then the West jumped in thinking they could catch Russia by surprise. In the end nobody was really "surprised" and so we got a war that I expect nobody, especially in hindsight, really expected, let alone wanted.

macintux 2y ago
> With Ukraine's entry into NATO appearing increasingly imminent Say what? AFAIK, Ukraine wasn’t even eligible for entry due to the organization’s rules on contested territories.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  The most clear trend in modern times is that rules are "flexible" when convenient. Here [1] is the relevant Wiki page, dated to the day before Russia's invasion. NATO had repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO, all that was missing was a date. In the context of this, there was ongoing escalation between Russia and NATO. Russia repeatedly sought any sort of means or agreement to ensure that they wouldn't end up with NATO setup on their doorstep. And NATO increasingly antagonistically disregarded and even belittled such interests. At the same time being ever more provocative with things like NATO-Ukraine military exercises in the Black Sea. It feels very much like the intent was to provoke, especially when this largely parallels the Cuban Missile Crisis with roles reversed. When the USSR wanted to expand their military reach to Cuba, we nearly started a nuclear war over it. And in that case, Cuba doesn't even share a border with the US! So it's not like we simply lacked the ability to understand why they might have a genuine concern here. The reason I backdated the article is because when you read that it sounds exactly like Russia is making their intentions of an invasion, if a compromise cannot be reached, rather unambiguously clear. And so if you read it, with hindsight, one might think it was edited with that outcome in mind. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations&oldid=1073361903#Request_of_guarantees_of_Ukraine's_non-accession_to_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine%E2%80%93N...
  - macintux 2y ago
    In the absence of a membership action plan, NATO saying "Yes, someday Ukraine will be a member" (something that they were barely able to agree on in 2008, and nothing changed in the 15 years after that) is hardly "imminent".
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Nothing changed is a rather odd way to read that page. The US not only began actively and publicly disregarding any protestations of Russia, but were actively carrying out NATO-Ukraine military exercises in seas right off the border of Russia. All the while you also had things like British warships intentionally entering Russian waters around Crimea. [1] There were constant provocations that would not have even been considered in 2008. Things were obviously headed to a climax rapidly. It was likely going to be war or NATO, or perhaps both. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363
      - mopsi 2y ago
        From the article: HMS Defender was sailing from Odessa in southern Ukraine to Georgia. To get there, it passed south of the Crimea peninsula, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014 in a move that has not been recognised internationally. While Moscow claims the peninsula and its waters are Russian territory, the UK says HMS Defender was passing through Ukrainian waters in a commonly used and internationally recognised transit route. Not quite the story you are trying to spin.

macintux 2y ago

> With Ukraine's entry into NATO appearing increasingly imminent Say what? AFAIK, Ukraine wasn’t even eligible for entry due to the organization’s rules on contested territories.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 2y ago
The most clear trend in modern times is that rules are "flexible" when convenient. Here [1] is the relevant Wiki page, dated to the day before Russia's invasion. NATO had repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO, all that was missing was a date. In the context of this, there was ongoing escalation between Russia and NATO. Russia repeatedly sought any sort of means or agreement to ensure that they wouldn't end up with NATO setup on their doorstep. And NATO increasingly antagonistically disregarded and even belittled such interests. At the same time being ever more provocative with things like NATO-Ukraine military exercises in the Black Sea. It feels very much like the intent was to provoke, especially when this largely parallels the Cuban Missile Crisis with roles reversed. When the USSR wanted to expand their military reach to Cuba, we nearly started a nuclear war over it. And in that case, Cuba doesn't even share a border with the US! So it's not like we simply lacked the ability to understand why they might have a genuine concern here. The reason I backdated the article is because when you read that it sounds exactly like Russia is making their intentions of an invasion, if a compromise cannot be reached, rather unambiguously clear. And so if you read it, with hindsight, one might think it was edited with that outcome in mind. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations&oldid=1073361903#Request_of_guarantees_of_Ukraine's_non-accession_to_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine%E2%80%93N...
- macintux 2y ago
  In the absence of a membership action plan, NATO saying "Yes, someday Ukraine will be a member" (something that they were barely able to agree on in 2008, and nothing changed in the 15 years after that) is hardly "imminent".
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Nothing changed is a rather odd way to read that page. The US not only began actively and publicly disregarding any protestations of Russia, but were actively carrying out NATO-Ukraine military exercises in seas right off the border of Russia. All the while you also had things like British warships intentionally entering Russian waters around Crimea. [1] There were constant provocations that would not have even been considered in 2008. Things were obviously headed to a climax rapidly. It was likely going to be war or NATO, or perhaps both. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363
    - mopsi 2y ago
      From the article: HMS Defender was sailing from Odessa in southern Ukraine to Georgia. To get there, it passed south of the Crimea peninsula, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014 in a move that has not been recognised internationally. While Moscow claims the peninsula and its waters are Russian territory, the UK says HMS Defender was passing through Ukrainian waters in a commonly used and internationally recognised transit route. Not quite the story you are trying to spin.