These questions have been answered in detail many time by plenty of people such as John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and many others. Russia’s annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the overthrow of the legitimate and democratically elected government by the west. The invasion of Ukraine was a response to NATO provocation. The fact that this was a provocation wasn’t even hidden. It was openly discussed in mainstream US media and by US think tanks. A couple of examples for you here
In fact, entire books have been written on the subject detailing the history of the provocations that led to the conflict.
You’re saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won’t be on that?
What I’m actually saying is that Europe is creating internal political instability and popular revolt against the neoliberal regime through its austerity policies. Meanwhile, Europe’s own actions are the reason for the adversarial relationship with Russia. Russia will obviously continue to see Europe as a threat given Europe’s openly hostile stance towards Russia, and therefore has every incentive to destabilize Europe in every way possible. Thus, European strategy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the actions Europe is taking ensure an adversarial relationship with Russia while destroying the foundation of economic stability that allows current political system to function.
Lol, so NATO provoking Russia is saying that Ukraine could enter at some point. Russia invaded them as in the future, they may not be able to invade them?!
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn’t want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders since the 90s. Don’t take my word for it though, here it is from the former head of NATO:
He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
I guess he must be spreading Ruzzian propaganda. 🤣
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn’t want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
I literally linked you an article and a policy paper above showing the exact opposite. I love how you ignore the reference I provide you with and just keep spewing propaganda talking points.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
Zelensky also jails his competition, and even cancelled elections. Yet, according to eurotrolls Ukraine is the pinnacle of democracy. I guess it’s not just Ukraine nowadays, Romania cancelled elections when the wrong candidate won and jailed him. So, let’s not pretend cancelling elections is something that doesn’t happen in European “democracies”.
I don’t think Russia wants to “invade and control their neighbors when it wishes”, but I also don’t think the expansion of NATO justifies in any way the war Russia started.
And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it’s not constructive in nature. The question should be how different countries should behave to avoid conflict.
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe. Without the US there is no NATO because Europe lacks industrial capacity to pick up the slack. Even with the US in NATO, Russian military industry is outproducing it by a large factor according to a no lesser person than Rutte:
All the NATO wunderwuffe failed to turn the tide of war in Ukraine, and now NATO stocks are running dry with no clear way to replace them because NATO is not capable of pumping weapons out at the rate they’re consumed in Ukraine.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans. They’ve already reestablished diplomatic relations, and when it becomes clear that Russia won the war, the US will make the best of it by throwing Europe under the bus.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it’s not constructive in nature.
Then why do you moralize Europe’s reaction? Or are you saying that you don’t think wasting money in military is bad?
“Moralizing” just means “making judgments on whether it’s good or bad”.
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe.
Can you explain what you mean by “this whole talk”? which talk? is this something I said?
I don’t see how this challengues anything I said (if this was your intent).
“NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders” is something you said, not me. I was just following up from that… I didn’t say anything about the power of NATO in Ukraine… you are making up your own straw man…
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans.
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians… this is not benefiting Russia either.
Then why do you moralize Europe’s reaction? Or are you saying that you don’t think Europe’s reaction is morally bad?
Point out where I make any moral arguments regarding Europe. What I’m actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that’s at odds with its own interests. The key is that strength is multifaceted, and it’s important to understand what type of strength is called for in any particular situation.
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
I’m saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could’ve been done differently to avoid the war.
Can you explain what you mean by “this whole talk”? which talk? is this something I said?
I’m referring to you saying: “And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.”
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but something benefiting the USA isn’t contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It’s not a zero sum game.
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians… this is not benefiting Russia either.
If by does deals you mean gets brutally exploited then sure. The US is now selling Europe energy at 5-10x times that Russia was charging, it’s actively poaching European industry that can’t survive on high energy prices, and it’s insisting on Europe spending an astounding 5% of GDP to pay US military industrial complex.
What I’m actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that’s at odds with its own interests
Ah, and don’t you think that’s bad? …or you just don’t think that acting in a way that harms the population should be “moralized”?
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war?
I don’t think Russia’s attack on Ukraine was a rational response to NATO’s expansion or beneficial to the Russians. If you don’t like the word “justified” then you can think of it in those terms.
I’m saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could’ve been done differently to avoid the war.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe’s responsibility?
Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Do you really think that NATO’s expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was “rational”? Because a moment ago you were saying that “NATO expanding is pure nonsense”, that it can’t really keep up, etc. So was NATO a threat or not?
I’m referring to you saying: “And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.”
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military… I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but something benefiting the USA isn’t contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It’s not a zero sum game.
I didn’t say it’s a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Same for Europe, the deal was brutal, but the pressure was high due to the breaks with Russia. Losing European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
I’m not surprised at Europe’s stupidity, but Russia is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, to put it mildly. Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together… and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
Ah, and don’t you think that’s bad? …or you just don’t think that acting in a way that harms the population should be “moralized”?
I’ve explicitly and repeatedly explained what I think. If you have trouble understanding what I wrote then please let me know what part of it you need explained to you further.
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war?
Furthermore, NATO is now in a state of complete chaos. There is infighting between Europeans internally, as well as growing ideological fractures across the Atlantic. It is not at all clear that NATO will survive the next few years. Don’t take my word for it though, here’s The Times describing the last NATO summit as Potemkin in nature.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe’s responsibility? Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Russia did try to avoid the war for 8 whole years. That’s what the Minsk agreements were about. The ones top European leaders have now admitted were never intended to be implemented faithfully and were used to buy time to arm Ukraine.
Perhaps what Russia should have done differently was to not wait as long as they did to intervene in the ethnic cleansing that Ukraine was conducting in Donbas with western help.
Do you really think that NATO’s expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was “rational”? Because a moment ago you were saying that “NATO expanding is pure nonsense”.
I do think that, and plenty of western experts think that as well and have been warning about this since the 90s. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
Yes it is wrong, and I’ve explained in detail why it’s wrong already.
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military… I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
I didn’t say it’s a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Russia isn’t forced to make any deals with the US last I checked. It’s the US that’s trying to make deals with Russia right now, not the other way around.
European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
It’s not because it opened up domestic niches that are being filled by local businesses, and China was able to redirect its trade towards BRICS. For example, trade with China stands at over 200 bln now. And of course, Russian oil and gas revenues soared 41% in first half of the year, as the data shows
I’m not surprised at Europe’s stupidity, but Russia is not the smartest tool in the shed either.
Russia is now largely insulated from the economic chaos in the west because it’s mostly cut out of western economy. This alone is a huge benefit because it will insulate Russia from the economic crash that’s unfolding in the west. Russia is still able to sell its commodities to the world, and it’s no longer reliant on the western financial system to do that. It managed to strengthen relations with friendly countries. China in particular has become a strong ally for China, and its economy already surpasses the US in terms of PPP. It’s also where pretty much all technology is produced.
Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together… and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
Russia has other options and it has proven over past three years that it does not need Europe. Meanwhile, Europe cannot function without Russian energy.
These questions have been answered in detail many time by plenty of people such as John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and many others. Russia’s annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the overthrow of the legitimate and democratically elected government by the west. The invasion of Ukraine was a response to NATO provocation. The fact that this was a provocation wasn’t even hidden. It was openly discussed in mainstream US media and by US think tanks. A couple of examples for you here
In fact, entire books have been written on the subject detailing the history of the provocations that led to the conflict.
What I’m actually saying is that Europe is creating internal political instability and popular revolt against the neoliberal regime through its austerity policies. Meanwhile, Europe’s own actions are the reason for the adversarial relationship with Russia. Russia will obviously continue to see Europe as a threat given Europe’s openly hostile stance towards Russia, and therefore has every incentive to destabilize Europe in every way possible. Thus, European strategy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the actions Europe is taking ensure an adversarial relationship with Russia while destroying the foundation of economic stability that allows current political system to function.
Lol, so NATO provoking Russia is saying that Ukraine could enter at some point. Russia invaded them as in the future, they may not be able to invade them?!
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn’t want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders since the 90s. Don’t take my word for it though, here it is from the former head of NATO:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I guess he must be spreading Ruzzian propaganda. 🤣
I literally linked you an article and a policy paper above showing the exact opposite. I love how you ignore the reference I provide you with and just keep spewing propaganda talking points.
Zelensky also jails his competition, and even cancelled elections. Yet, according to eurotrolls Ukraine is the pinnacle of democracy. I guess it’s not just Ukraine nowadays, Romania cancelled elections when the wrong candidate won and jailed him. So, let’s not pretend cancelling elections is something that doesn’t happen in European “democracies”.
I don’t think Russia wants to “invade and control their neighbors when it wishes”, but I also don’t think the expansion of NATO justifies in any way the war Russia started.
And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it’s not constructive in nature. The question should be how different countries should behave to avoid conflict.
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe. Without the US there is no NATO because Europe lacks industrial capacity to pick up the slack. Even with the US in NATO, Russian military industry is outproducing it by a large factor according to a no lesser person than Rutte:
All the NATO wunderwuffe failed to turn the tide of war in Ukraine, and now NATO stocks are running dry with no clear way to replace them because NATO is not capable of pumping weapons out at the rate they’re consumed in Ukraine.
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans. They’ve already reestablished diplomatic relations, and when it becomes clear that Russia won the war, the US will make the best of it by throwing Europe under the bus.
Then why do you moralize Europe’s reaction? Or are you saying that you don’t think wasting money in military is bad?
“Moralizing” just means “making judgments on whether it’s good or bad”.
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
Can you explain what you mean by “this whole talk”? which talk? is this something I said?
I don’t see how this challengues anything I said (if this was your intent).
“NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders” is something you said, not me. I was just following up from that… I didn’t say anything about the power of NATO in Ukraine… you are making up your own straw man…
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians… this is not benefiting Russia either.
Point out where I make any moral arguments regarding Europe. What I’m actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that’s at odds with its own interests. The key is that strength is multifaceted, and it’s important to understand what type of strength is called for in any particular situation.
I’m saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could’ve been done differently to avoid the war.
I’m referring to you saying: “And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.”
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but something benefiting the USA isn’t contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It’s not a zero sum game.
If by does deals you mean gets brutally exploited then sure. The US is now selling Europe energy at 5-10x times that Russia was charging, it’s actively poaching European industry that can’t survive on high energy prices, and it’s insisting on Europe spending an astounding 5% of GDP to pay US military industrial complex.
Ah, and don’t you think that’s bad? …or you just don’t think that acting in a way that harms the population should be “moralized”?
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war? I don’t think Russia’s attack on Ukraine was a rational response to NATO’s expansion or beneficial to the Russians. If you don’t like the word “justified” then you can think of it in those terms.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe’s responsibility? Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Do you really think that NATO’s expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was “rational”? Because a moment ago you were saying that “NATO expanding is pure nonsense”, that it can’t really keep up, etc. So was NATO a threat or not?
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military… I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
I didn’t say it’s a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Same for Europe, the deal was brutal, but the pressure was high due to the breaks with Russia. Losing European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
I’m not surprised at Europe’s stupidity, but Russia is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, to put it mildly. Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together… and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
I’ve explicitly and repeatedly explained what I think. If you have trouble understanding what I wrote then please let me know what part of it you need explained to you further.
Absolutely, the World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country, and the IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies. Russia has also demonstrated that it is able to take on NATO militarily, and given that it is winning the war, it will dictate the terms in Ukraine.
Furthermore, NATO is now in a state of complete chaos. There is infighting between Europeans internally, as well as growing ideological fractures across the Atlantic. It is not at all clear that NATO will survive the next few years. Don’t take my word for it though, here’s The Times describing the last NATO summit as Potemkin in nature.
Russia did try to avoid the war for 8 whole years. That’s what the Minsk agreements were about. The ones top European leaders have now admitted were never intended to be implemented faithfully and were used to buy time to arm Ukraine.
Perhaps what Russia should have done differently was to not wait as long as they did to intervene in the ethnic cleansing that Ukraine was conducting in Donbas with western help.
I do think that, and plenty of western experts think that as well and have been warning about this since the 90s. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Yes it is wrong, and I’ve explained in detail why it’s wrong already.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
Russia isn’t forced to make any deals with the US last I checked. It’s the US that’s trying to make deals with Russia right now, not the other way around.
It’s not because it opened up domestic niches that are being filled by local businesses, and China was able to redirect its trade towards BRICS. For example, trade with China stands at over 200 bln now. And of course, Russian oil and gas revenues soared 41% in first half of the year, as the data shows
Russia is now largely insulated from the economic chaos in the west because it’s mostly cut out of western economy. This alone is a huge benefit because it will insulate Russia from the economic crash that’s unfolding in the west. Russia is still able to sell its commodities to the world, and it’s no longer reliant on the western financial system to do that. It managed to strengthen relations with friendly countries. China in particular has become a strong ally for China, and its economy already surpasses the US in terms of PPP. It’s also where pretty much all technology is produced.
Russia has other options and it has proven over past three years that it does not need Europe. Meanwhile, Europe cannot function without Russian energy.