@vivify saidSo what? Who cares what Russian propaganda says? Why is that "important"?
This has already been addressed but let me bring up something Putin said just last month:
https://www.courthousenews.com/putin-blames-nato-for-pushing-russia-into-invasion/
Putin blamed NATO for Russia's invasion. We know Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO after 14 years of not advancing past the application phase. Crimea was annexed after pro-EU protests, but the E ...[text shortened]... oser to joining NATO than it was in 2008, and even though NATO has never deployed troops to Ukraine.
A clarification; Crimea was annexed into Russia not after "pro-EU protests" but after the illegal ouster of Ukraine's President who opposed greater ties to the West than to Russia for the country.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidIt's important because even Western outlets looked to blame NATO as being at least partially if not entirely responsible for the invasion. The Russian foreign minister is continuing to spread a claim that was widely accepted even by people who denounced the invasion.
So what? Who cares what Russian propaganda says? Why is that "important"?
A clarification; Crimea was annexed into Russia not after "pro-EU protests" but after the illegal ouster of Ukraine's President who opposed greater ties to the West than to Russia for the country.
The pro-EU protests directly lead to the ousting of a president who backed out of an EU deal.
@vivify saidI really don't see how that is "important". I started a thread discussing why Russia invaded in February and did not suggest that there was any imminent possibility of Ukrainian admission to NATO at the time.
It's important because even Western outlets looked to blame NATO as being at least partially if not entirely responsible for the invasion. The Russian foreign minister is continuing to spread a claim that was widely accepted even by people who denounced the invasion.
The pro-EU protests directly lead to the ousting of a president who backed out of an EU deal.
The other point was that pro-EU protests in and of themselves would not have triggered a Russian response similar to the Crimean annexation.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI wasn't indicting you of making that claim but there were many Western outlets arguing that NATO may have pushed Putin into an invasion, or at least heavily influenced it. For example:
I really don't see how that is "important". I started a thread discussing why Russia invaded in February and did not suggest that there was any imminent possibility of Ukrainian admission to NATO at the time.
The other point was that pro-EU protests in and of themselves would not have triggered a Russian response similar to the Crimean annexation.
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis
John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it
The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War. It’s Not ‘Siding With Putin’ to Admit It
While these outlets had good intentions of trying to be objective rather than just demonizing Russia, they were ultimately wrong. Yes, NATO broke promises and exhibited warmongering, but as far Ukraine is concerned, Russia can't blame NATO. Russia is using such claims to let itself off the hook for the invasion.
As far as the EU protests, I agree that in combination with the ouster of the president triggered an invasion. But even then Putin blamed NATO for the invasion when NATO had nothing to do with it.
@vivify saidI'm sorry but you are oversimplifying what the Cato article says. This part is accurate:
I wasn't indicting you of making that claim but there were many Western outlets arguing that NATO may have pushed Putin into an invasion, or at least heavily influenced it. For example:
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis
[b]John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally ...[text shortened]... an invasion. But even then Putin blamed NATO for the invasion when NATO had nothing to do with it.
"Instead, the Trump and Biden administrations poured weapons into Ukraine, approved joint military exercises between U.S. and Ukrainian forces, and even prodded the allies to include Ukraine in NATO war games.
In late 2021, it became clear that the Kremlin’s restraint had run dry. Moscow issued demands for security guarantees, including a draw‐down of military forces already deployed in NATO’s eastern members. With respect to Ukraine, the demand was very clear and uncompromising: Not only would Kyiv never receive a membership invitation, but NATO weapons and troops would never be deployed on Ukrainian soil. When the West failed to provide those guarantees, Putin launched his devastating, full‐scale war."
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it
3 edits
@no1marauder saidDon't get me wrong: the article makes many valid points. But the fact remains that NATO troops have never touched Ukrainian soil and Ukraine has never advanced past the application phase after 14 years.
I'm sorry but you are oversimplifying what the Cato article says. This part is accurate:
"Instead, the Trump and Biden administrations poured weapons into Ukraine, approved joint military exercises between U.S. and Ukrainian forces, and even prodded the allies to include Ukraine in NATO war games.
In late 2021, it became clear that the Kremlin’s restraint had run dr ...[text shortened]...
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it
And as I mentioned, Russia also blamed NATO for its annexation of Ukraine, when NATO wasn't a factor, the EU was.
Riding that wave of (warranted) criticism of NATO, in comes the Russian foreign minister not only claiming there is no invasion but also blaming NATO for it.
Even before Putin invaded he recognized the Donbas regions as independent, and used as a false flag to actually start the invasion. NATO seems nothing more than a scapegoat to cover up what was Russia's true intent all along: the takeover of the Donetsk and Luhansk, a region of ethnic Russians, just like Crimea.
@vivify saidBut things did "advance"; NATO started deploying troops and equipment after 2014 in Eastern Europe.
Don't get me wrong: the article makes many valid points. But the fact remains that NATO troops have never touched Ukrainian soil and Ukraine has never advanced past the application phase after 14 years.
And as I mentioned, Russia also blamed NATO for its annexation of Ukraine, when NATO wasn't a factor, the EU was.
Riding that wave of (warranted) criticism of NATO, ...[text shortened]... t all along: the takeover of the Donetsk and Luhansk, a region of ethnic Russians, just like Crimea.
The US sent $2.7 billion in military assistance to the Ukraine and trained over 10,000 of its soldiers from 2014 to 2022. https://www.stimson.org/2022/u-s-military-assistance-to-ukraine/
In February 2019, the Ukraine changed its Constitutional pledge of neutrality to an explicit goal of gaining NATO membership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
The June 2021 NATO Brussels Summit statement, besides reiterating that the Ukraine would one day become a NATO member, recognized an ever increasing coordination between NATO and the Ukrainian military:
"We will also continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats, including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on Countering Hybrid Warfare. We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced situational awareness. Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine, including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force, and NATO exercises."
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm paragraph 69
The whole communique was quite bellicose towards Russia as was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg comments:
""Russia has no say in whether Ukraine should be a member of the Alliance. They cannot veto what to do with its neighbors. We will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when big countries decide what to do with smaller ones," he explained."[Gee. tell that to the Serbs, Iraqis and Afghans - no1]. https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2021/06/14/7124429/
What influence these developments made in Russia's decision to launch the war is difficult to say and whether they were more important than domestic developments in the Ukraine including increasing repression of the ethnic Russian minority and suppression of alleged "pro-Russian" parties and media outlets is impossible to completely parse. But it can hardly have been without any influence, particularly after the proposed treaties the Russians brought forth as a basis for negotiations in December 2021 were summarily and contemptuously dismissed by the US, the West and the Ukraine.
@no1marauder saidYes, NATO military cooperation escalated *after* Russia annexed Crimea. That's important to note since NATO membership for Ukraine still hasn't passed the application process.
But things did "advance"; NATO started deploying troops and equipment after 2014 in Eastern Europe.
The US sent $2.7 billion in military assistance to the Ukraine and trained over 10,000 of its soldiers from 2014 to 2022. https://www.stimson.org/2022/u-s-military-assistance-to-ukraine/
In February 2019, the Ukraine changed its Constitutional pledge of neutrality to ...[text shortened]... ns in December 2021 were summarily and contemptuously dismissed by the US, the West and the Ukraine.
But notice a pattern: Putin invades Georgia, blames NATO, then annexed their pro-Russian territory; Putin invades pro-Russian Crimea, blames NATO, annexes that territory; now Putin invades Ukraine, blames NATO and demands Ukraine cedes pro-Russian Donbas region.
This is not a coincidence. Combined with everything I've already mentioned with how far from NATO membership Ukraine has been for the last 14 years, it seems Putin is using legitimate concerns as a scapegoat for his agenda.
I agree NATO may be influencing Putin's decisions; perhaps he wants a larger buffer zone between NATO and Russia by occupying more territory. But given Putin's history, like Crimea which had little to do with NATO, he could just be making excuses
@vivify saidWell, this is the slowest motion conquest of all time; Georgia in 2008 (where Russia withdrew from the territory it had taken); Crimea in 2014 and now an open, large scale invasion of the Ukraine.
Yes, NATO military cooperation escalated *after* Russia annexed Crimea. That's important to note since NATO membership for Ukraine still hasn't passed the application process.
But notice a pattern: Putin invades Georgia, blames NATO, then annexed their pro-Russian territory; Putin invades pro-Russian Crimea, blames NATO, annexes that territory; now Putin invades Ukraine, b ...[text shortened]... given Putin's history, like Crimea which had little to do with NATO, he could just be making excuses
It makes it all seem reactive and/or dependent on multiple circumstances rather than any Grand Master Plan. It is true that even someone as pro-Western as Yeltsin vehemently opposed the eastward expansion of NATO (as presumably would any Russian leader), so I think your conclusion that these Russian actions have little or nothing to do with NATO and its aggressive moves eastward is naïve at best. They may not be direct triggers, but they are part of the environment in which Russian leaders make decisions.
I pretty much explained to you before that there is no "application process" for NATO and countries can be accepted into the alliance whenever all the member nations agree, but I see you still keep pretending to the contrary.
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with a German newspaper published Sunday that the war in Ukraine could last for years."
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3528991-nato-chief-says-ukraine-war-could-last-for-years/
In the meantime, while the West is pouring in close to $100 billion dollars in military aid to the Ukraine:
"The UN's World Food Programme warned on Sunday that refugees in East and West Africa faced smaller food rations due to a surge in demand and insufficient funding.
Three-quarters of refugees in East Africa supported by the United Nations' programme have seen their rations reduced by up to 50 percent, WFP said, with those in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan and Uganda the worst affected."
"On Tuesday, the WFP appealed for $426 million to stave off famine in South Sudan, where years of conflict and floods have forced millions of people from their homes.
It said more than two-thirds of the population required humanitarian assistance, with 8.3 million people, including refugees, expected to face "severe acute hunger" this year.
The war in Ukraine has significantly worsened the global refugee crisis and the risk of famine, not only creating six million additional refugees as civilians flee conflict zones, but in pushing up commodity prices, especially grain."
https://www.barrons.com/amp/news/un-warns-african-refugees-face-food-cuts-due-to-inadequate-funds-01655636706
A decision to continue the war indefinitely until Russia is militarily defeated (which is unlikely to ever occur) has global consequences.
8 edits
@no1marauder saidhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18175030
Well, this is the slowest motion conquest of all time; Georgia in 2008 (where Russia withdrew from the territory it had taken);
"After the Georgian-Russian war in 2008, Moscow recognized the region as an independent state. In recent years, Abkhazia has drifted closer and closer to Russia. In 2009 Moscow signed a five-year agreement with Abkhazia to take formal control of its frontiers with Georgia proper."
Yes, they withdrew because they succeeded in their goal ripping it away from Georgia.
It makes it all seem reactive and/or dependent on multiple circumstances rather than any Grand Master Plan. It is true that even someone as pro-Western as Yeltsin vehemently opposed the eastward expansion of NATO (as presumably would any Russian leader), so I think your conclusion that these Russian actions have little or nothing to do with NATO and its aggressive moves eastward is naïve at best.
What I said was specifically regarding Ukraine; I wasn't claiming all of Russia's invasions had little or nothing to do with NATO. However, as you mentioned, it's hard to know how much NATO really factored into any of their decisions. NATO was not a trigger for Crimea and is evidence they may just be using NATO as an excuse to gain territory.
I pretty much explained to you before that there is no "application process" for NATO and countries
And you were wrong:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3494436-how-does-a-country-become-part-of-nato/
"There are then five steps to the accession process. Finland is unlikely to have to implement any reform to meet NATO standards and requirements, which will save the application procedure some time"
Those "reforms" required for the NATO application are what kept Ukraine from moving past the application phase.
@vivify saidRussia was in full occupation of several Georgian cities, much of that nation's territory and could have taken its capital easily. The two separatist republics had been de facto independent since 1994. Russia's withdrawal from all undisputed Georgian territory hardly fits the "Putin as conqueror" narrative.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18175030
"After the Georgian-Russian war in 2008, Moscow recognized the region as an independent state. In recent years, Abkhazia has drifted closer and closer to Russia. In 2009 Moscow signed a five-year agreement with Abkhazia to take formal control of its frontiers with Georgia proper."
Yes, they withdrew because they succe ...[text shortened]... rms" required for the NATO application are what kept Ukraine from moving past the application phase.
You are simply stubborn and wrong to keep insisting that the Ukraine started some mandatory application process to NATO that was never completed. NATO can accept whatever members it wishes whenever it chooses subject to unanimous approval of existing members.
@no1marauder saidSo Russia decided to waste military resources on a invasion for no reason? Rethink that argument.
The two separatist republics had been de facto independent since 1994.
You are simply stubborn and wrong to keep insisting that the Ukraine started some mandatory application process to NATO that was never completed.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
"MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP"
Go tell NATO how they're wrong about their own requirements.
@vivify saidI already showed you the NATO Treaty in another thread particularly Article 10. Maybe you should read it this time: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
So Russia decided to waste military resources on a invasion for no reason? Rethink that argument.
You are simply stubborn and wrong to keep insisting that the Ukraine started some mandatory application process to NATO that was never completed.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
"MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their ...[text shortened]... countries’ applications for MAP"
Go tell NATO how they're wrong about their own requirements.
I'm sure Russia had its reasons for invading Georgia but that they do so as a war of conquest to acquire two very small areas that had been de facto independent of Georgia for more than a decade is hardly a plausible one.
