Stop it with the NATO caused this crap already. Bully. lol. We're like Miyagi-do and Russia is Cobra Kai (sorry @uftaipan's avatar)
I agree that NATO was formed as the bully on the play ground to protect NATO members even though the allies in WW II happily accepted Russian support. The caveat here is Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
As with many things in life, the truth lie somewhere in the middle. We can’t blame NATO for Putin blowing up apartment blocs. But at the same time, if NATO had kept it’s sights off of Kyiv, this probably doesn’t happen. Russia simply views Ukraine as a security blanket they can’t let go.
Thanks for the link to the book. It is now on my reading list. I've been arguing the same point through out this thread. The only way to ensure stability is to occupy a nation state and set up your own form of government which is not an easy task.
So basically, Ukraine has always been there for Russia to take, whenever they wanted to, because if they did, NATO has no recourse, as Ukraine isn’t part of NATO and as such should never get involved……?
Technically they usually do, even if the losing side has little to no leverage in the discussion. Grant and Lee ended the civil war in a room in Appomattox. And Grant generously made concessions in the process. Even WW2 ended in a signed document between the two sides. Even if it means beating their brains in first, eventually the two sides will come together and talk.
Putin views Ukraine as a vassal state to be administered by a Putin approved administrator. NATO is just a justification for him to overthrow a gubmnt he doesn't approve of
It is really more the other way around. A couple of decades ago most Ukrainian trade was with Russia, in the last decade a big chunk of changed to the EU. Ukrainians finally got tired of heavy handed Russian tactics, abysmal economic growth and corruption and threw the bums out. Ukrainians looked to the EU and NATO, not so much the other way around. Do Ukrainians have any autonomy? Do they have any say in their destiny? Because sometimes certain western parties entertained the idea of EU or NATO membership, in response to Ukrainian requests, that is an action deserving of Russian invasion? Expecting that diverse western democracies are all going to continuously say the exact optimal sequence of words to best appease Russia is just not realistic. The Ukrainians were the ones making noise, not NATO. Russia responded with heavy handedness. At that point, then NATO had to choose how to respond. It isn’t reasonable to think that NATO could have perfectly managed events and Ukrainian to keep this from happening.
The US provided 1/3 of all explosives Russia used to defeat Hitler. "Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today's currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”
Not what I said. At the same time, if you think we didn’t have anything to do with the Orange Revolution or Maidan, you are ignoring reality. Those were both Western backed coups. I’m not saying it was morally wrong. What I am saying is Russia feel justified in their actions. Yes, they are barbaric, but let’s not act like we didn’t make moves on Kyiv before this started. We did and this is Russia’s response. And Ukraine is not part of NATO for a reason. If they could have met the standard, NATO would have accepted them a long time ago.
I don’t know if any of you remember first knight but this speech seems appropriate for making a point here… also I’m drunk so maybe ignore me. It’s short.
This is unadulterated nonsense. Pure Putin propaganda. This should be good please describe the moves we made on Kyiv. Try to do so using multiple paragraphs
Most of you are just parroting media talking points, without any first-hand research and personal background on the matter. Pointing out that Kyiv has been the subject of two Western-backed coups is not a pro-Russia stance. It’s just what happened. If you don’t believe Washington has a vested interest in Ukraine, you’re just ignoring reality.
I think you have to distinguish between "diplomacy of negotiations" and "diplomacy at the end of a gun". Those are two separate situations. Many would even argue that "diplomacy at the end of a gun" is not even diplomacy. Instead, it's more of "this is what you need to agree to do to continue living on this planet".
We all should have a vested interest in any country that cannot deal with others without using the nuke threat. It's survival. Putin simply chose invading another country and DESTROYING AND KILLING CIVILIANS without a threat! What is with all this justification being thrown about? Is history not acceptable?
Russia seems to have an entitled, imperialistic stance toward neighboring countries, particularly on their western flank. Any opposition to that is viewed as a threat to their statehood, which of course is absurd. They seriously need to get over themselves. They are not Roman Empire 3.0. (even though they see themselves as such. Rome, Byzantine, Russia)
Sorry, no. Accepting terms of surrender is not diplomacy. The generous terms you referenced followed surrender; they were not part of a diplomatic agreement. The last stab at a diplomatic solution occurred at Hampton Roads in early February 1865 (depicted briefly in the film Lincoln). I’ll agree that most wars end with diplomacy, and I believe that ultimately that’s how this war will end. But many historical conflicts have ended with the victorious imposing their will strictly with military means. And I stand by my assessment that this is how Russia intended to terminate its conflict over Ukraine.
U.S. Has a New Plan That’s Going to Make Putin Really Pissed (msn.com) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is slated to attend the Crimea Platform parliamentary summit in Croatia this week as part of a forum to discuss kicking Russia out of Crimea and returning the peninsula to Ukraine. Her visit is meant to show the United States’ “ironclad solidarity” with Ukraine, the Democrat said in a statement. But while it may seem like just the latest expression of support from the West, the trip could reverberate all the way to the Kremlin. "I look forward to discussing how we can further support Ukraine—because the fight for Ukraine is the fight for democracy itself,” she said. “As Speaker, it is my privilege to join our European allies and other partners from around the globe in Croatia to deliver an unmistakable statement of our solidarity with the Ukrainian people.” Pelosi’s attendance, which comes nine months after Russia’s latest invasion, proves that helping Ukraine seize back the long-contested territory is in the political mainstream in the United States. “Her participation is a direct confirmation that the issue of de-occupation of Crimea is high on the agenda in Washington,” First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Emine Dzheppar said Monday. “With such support, the return of Crimea is closer than ever.”
