> I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.
NATO, in a statement from the NATO Summit, explicitly indicated last June (so, before the late 2021 encirclement) the intention that Ukraine would join the alliance through the Membership Action Plan.
This reiterated a 2008 policy statement that had effectively been shelved by the Yanukovych governments anti-NATO position, but never formally restated after a more NATO-friendly government had emerged in Ukraine and sought to advance towards membership.
Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?
Or maybe going back farther Russia's sudden seizure of Crimea with a fraudulent vote with 97% in support could've been what made Ukraine nervous that they'd be invaded and seek support from other countries?
Or maybe going back a little farther to the USSR's atrocities against Ukraine, including Holodomor--the outright genocide of the Ukrainian people--might've been the thing that makes Ukraine want to ally with literally any country but Russia?
The idea that Ukraine should want to associate with Russia is the most bizarre political claim there ever was. Their history is nothing but being ravaged and literally raped by Russia, so them considering joining NATO is nothing but a big "no shit". Putin deserves to be surrounded for his actions. All he's done is shown that the Russia's intentions to destroy the Ukrainian people haven't changed in 100 years.
A big part of the general population of Ukraine never wanted to do anything with NATO, even at the peak of the crisis western backed poll found the support for NATO only around 54%. Your count of history of Ukraine being raped and ravaged by Russia is generally not supported by large part of Ukrainian population, as supported even the western polls.
> Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?
What? Eastern Ukraine including Donbass and Crimea has a large majority of Russian speakers with ties with Russia. Ukrainian parliament decided to deny minority languages meant to provoke Russia http://www.iconnectblog.com/2021/04/minority-rights-ukraines...
And opposition to NATO was only 28%. Twice as many people want to join NATO as those who oppose joining.
That's a huge majority and the way you are trying to undersell it means you are either being intentionally misleading or didn't understand how the poll worked.
America has a large portion of English speakers. It historically had a large portion of people with direct ties to the UK. Haiti had plenty of people with ties to France and still has French speakers. Taiwan has Chinese speakers and people with family in China.
There's a clear pattern here. But Russia pays people to pretend that Russian speakers means it's their land to stabilize. When in reality, it's a completely irrelevant statement.
Maybe you read some history? To learn how parts of Russia, Hungary, Romania, Slovacia and Poland were forcefully integrated into Ucrainei along with their respective populations by Soviet leaders?
> Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?
You are maybe confused with neo-Nazi Azov battalion and co. also funded and trained by the USA, which have committed documented war crimes against civilians.
The very first paragraph of Wikipedia even says Azov formed as a consequence of something.
That reason? To push Russian forces out of their country.
If Russia weren't terrorizing the region, Azov would not exist. Russia pays to astroturf the claim that Azov is some thing that appeared out of nowhere when it's a group that formed directly to keep Russia and its violent militias out.
The Azov Battalion was formed out of at least three groups, Patriot of Ukraine [1], the Social-National Assembley [2] , and Right Sector [3]. Right Sector, or Right Sektor, was the one most talked about in the West PRIOR to any invasion, mainly because they were neo-nazis. While I have spent a good amount of time in Ukraine prior to any of these events, if you want see something on it, watch the VICE Media video on Right Sektor. This issue was not politicized at the time.
Since all of their foundings predate the Russian re-entry into Ukraine, I think your history is a little bit wrong.
When the CIA supported coup happened in Kiev, and a Pro-Russian leader forcefully deposed, Pro-Russian forces in Ukraine were burned alive [4]. This is just one of many atrocities that happened . Given that like half the country is Russian, most of which is on the East, this gave Russia Casus Belli to seize territory that was historically Russian, and to protect the Ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
So, long before Ukraine became a client state of the US State Department, and Rich Oligarchs supported by the US formed nationalist groups into Ukrainian elite units, these neo-fascists existed. Media on the left, center and right confirm this, to deny it is merely convenient revisionism.
I can't help but notice that instead of condemning Azov crimes and recognizing that they too are a terrorizing force in the region, you conveniently blamed their existence on Russia. The hypocrisy here is blaring. We are now at the point of tolerating, hiding and in some extreme cases even justify the crimes committed by these people. All the while forgetting the fact that the US has provided them with military training, money and weapons.
In fact, if the US can interfere in a country that's thousands miles away by funding extremist military groups, I find it way more legitimate for Russia to fund Russian separatists in the Donbas region, which has historically had strong ties with Russia and whose population would rather stay there than join the "Western" side. It's also interesting how everybody always talks about self-determination, but only in the case where people want to "self-determine" themselves in the right direction. I would be interested in knowing why it doesn't apply in this case.
To conclude: the Ukrainian army along with this these neo-Nazi groups (that have been effectively integrated into the army) has destroyed several hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure and killed more than 3000 civilians since 2014 in the Donbas. Ignoring this situation and blaming everything on Russia is one of the reason that we are in this situation right now, and surely one very myopic way of assessing what's going on.
>In fact, if the US can interfere in a country that's thousands miles away by funding extremist military groups, I find it way more legitimate for Russia to fund Russian separatists in the Donbas region, which has historically had strong ties with Russia and whose population would rather stay there than join the "Western" side. It's also interesting how everybody always talks about self-determination, but only in the case where people want to "self-determine" themselves in the right direction. I would be interested in knowing why it doesn't apply in this case.
US bombed Yogoslavia into Oblivion for not agreeing to secession of a historical Serbian territory, Kosovo.
Sure, those bombs killed innocent civilians and even children but no one from the West decried those murders.
It's the same as acknowledging that the Taliban wouldn't exist without American and Russian interference in the region.
Azov and the Taliban are bad, yeah. But they appeared because of foreign threats. None of this would happen if Russia didn't repeatedly murder people in neighboring countries then backpedal and retroactively justify their invasion by saying radical defense forces are defending themselves from Russia.
Don't want your country to be attacked by extremists? Don't invade and push people to radical groups. Your paycheck signer deserves the blame for Azov 100%.
If you look at the actions of Russia it seems pretty clear that this conflict is nothing else than a protracted attempt to subjugate and destroy ukraine. All those legions of justifications are just noise to sow dissent so russia can do as it wants.
And yes, if a nation is under constant attack by a far more powerful neighbour that denies its right to exist ugly things and strange bedfellows are bound to happen. The ukraines didnt turn away the Nazis of the Azov and russia is using the Wagner Group Nazis and thugs like Igor Girkin whose people shoot down passenger flights.
Putin is practicing the kind of politics that was the norm for most of human history, there really is no reason to be flummoxed by it.
I think the US is on a long campaign for regime change in Russia.
Part of baking that cake includes ingredients like destabilizing former soviet republics, weakening their borders, utilizing hostile NGOs in Russia, and in former soviet republics, and the economic warfare. Fomenting a coup in Ukraine was part of that plan.
Unfortunately, we've driven Russia rather straight into the arms to China, and set up the conditions for de-dollarization. Russia + China + Pakistan + Venezuela + North Korea + many others have now the means and motive to counterbalance and resist.
Russia invading Ukraine is merely seizing territory before it becomes weaponized against them in the form of an invasion staging ground. Given Russian gaps in incoming missile awareness, and the respective short distance to Moscow, they have reasons to be concerned about a hostile enemy on their border. Given Russian experience and nearness, they are likely to be incredibly scrappy as this is an existential threat to them.
The same with missiles in Cuba for us, and look what we did as a response?
I dont think the west was especially interested in a regime change for the most part.
Why?
Nobody cared. Russia has to sell its ressources anyway and its cleptocracy is unable to transform the economy into a powerful contender. Its going to be fun to see russia as a chinese vassal and how china will put up with Putins paranoia and egomania.
Putin is just like a bigger version of Kim Jong Un who needs to be coddled and given a place on the world stage otherwise he will generate some stink one way or the other.
Those NGOs have been in russia since the fall of the SU and it was the russian state that changed and turned hostile to them. I dont think that this has been anticipated at that time.
Can you please describe a plausible scenario to me where an NATO invasion on moscow generating from ukraine does not end in a nuclear holocaust, same as from the baltics or any other place?
Yep, the US response during the cuba missile crisis was a pretty insane shitshow. Thankfully cooler and wiser heads in the SU were able to defuse the situation.
Putin already told G. W. Bush 2008 that ukraine was no real country and he spent the last 8 years trying to fix that historic mistake.
It seems to me that both sides, through negotiation, arrived at the "correct" answer to the problem, which was withdrawal of missiles from Cuba and Turkey. In what way was the US response considered a shitshow, and why are US negotiators not considered as cool and wise as the SU ones here, considering they had to ultimately arrive at the same place?
But the cuban missile crisis incurred the cost of risking nuclear war.
And what for?
Both parties had sufficient capabilities to achieve total destruction of the enemy, missiles in cuba and turkey or not.
Plus there already were 150+ nuclear weapons on cuba that the US didnt know about and that the SU was prepared to gift to Castro to placate him. But Castro seemed to unstable so the SU retrieved those in the end.
The US response nearly led to a nuclear war for no strategic gain and even then it nearly led to a nuclear armed Cuba on its doorstep.
NATO, in a statement from the NATO Summit, explicitly indicated last June (so, before the late 2021 encirclement) the intention that Ukraine would join the alliance through the Membership Action Plan.
This reiterated a 2008 policy statement that had effectively been shelved by the Yanukovych governments anti-NATO position, but never formally restated after a more NATO-friendly government had emerged in Ukraine and sought to advance towards membership.