'Neutrality clause' while NATO says it is going to incorporate Ukraine into its ranks and the US is funneling billions of dollars into Ukraine to support a coup d'etat — Tzeentch

Neutrality clause was implemented when NATO (i.e. Germany and France) have shelved Ukraine's aspirations to indetermined future in place of the scheduled specific enagement. It is astounding that such basic facts from history must still be explained (repeatedly).

:monkey:

As a response to Russia's hybrid attack on Finland with sending and assisting refugees to the border, the opposition leader Lindtman proposed aiding Ukraine military with 100 000 euros for refugee that manages to cross the border. "Our support for Ukraine doesn't waiver, the focus won't go off Ukraine, on the contrary. " he said. (Own translation from Finnish)

Lindtman is the leader of social democrat party after Sanna Marin, which just shows how in unison the political parties are about the situation.

Do something twice, and you lose strategic surprise initiative.

When some years ago Russia did the same kind of maneuver, the Finnish politicians were dumbfounded and didn't know how to reply. Only behind closed doors the authorities understood the hybrid attack. Now it was immediately revealed by the media how the FSB was behind this. EU countries firmly understand this and there isn't anymore the discord that happened with the refugee crisis in 2016. The response is world away from what it was back then.



That discord and uncertainty is now in how to deal with the situation in the Middle East, not with Russia.

Yes. As the quote you made yourself says: "Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression."

Do you understand what 'in response' means? No?

People in a philosophy forum ought to understand cause and effect. — ssu

This is the point in question:

It should be noted that at the time of annexation of Crimea Ukraine had neutrality clause in its constitution, and the reason given was that the new government might some day allow Western forces to station in Ukraine. Thus the claim that Russia might be satisfied with any 'formal neutrality' is obviously false. — Jabberwock

Disputing my point that Ukraine is obviously not "neutral", but rather Aha!! Ukraine had a "neutrality clause in its constitution"!! and has been neutral the whole time, the Russians have been just delirious as to the political position of Ukraine and invaded a neutral country! OMG hold the presses!!!

A point you then assent to by stating:

Indeed. Formal neutrality hasn't left Moldova safe from Russia's interventions either. — ssu

"Indeed" being an approbation of the referenced points n this context.

Not only is Ukraine not neutral, but I provide further clarification of what neutral means (that anyone of good faith willing to accuse others of lacking "reading comprehension" can easily go read and educate themselves on what "neutrality" obviously means in international relations) with the Wikipedia article that is literally called "neutral country" and I even list the "neutral countries" according to this definition I am Using, but if you were still confused why "Ukraine" doesn't appear on that list, you could easily go to the article and use the power of "reading comprehension" to read it and see that is literally starts with a definition of neutral "country":

A neutral country is a state that is neutral towards belligerents in a specific war or holds itself as permanently neutral in all future conflicts (including avoiding entering into military alliances such as NATO, CSTO or the SCO). —

To which, if you can apply that reading comprehension you covet so much, the definition of "neutral country" on the Wikipedia page literally tilted "neutral country" explicitly clarifies neutrality to be a "permanent" commitment and explicitly lists NATO as an alliance a neutral country would be committing to avoid joining.

Obviously if you declare your intention to join a military alliance and that military alliance not only creates all sorts of military partnerships and support but also reciprocates and publicly declares they'll let you in oh ... some day, that is not neutral.

If "neutrality" language is left in law or the constitution it is clearly irrelevant.

To support my point that Ukraine is obviously not neutral I cite NATO's own webpage.

You then manage to obliviate yourself about what we're even talking about, what the point of contention is, what you previously cheered on as brilliant argumentation, and you then manage to respond that essentially: of course Ukraine isn't Neutral, Russia is annexed Crimea dumb dumb!!!

Let's "read" it again shall we:

Yes. As the quote you made yourself says: "Ukraine pursued a policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression."

Do you understand what 'in response' means? No?

People in a philosophy forum ought to understand cause and effect. — ssu

You literally go in 2 comments from approving of the idea Ukraine is neutral, and has been neutral this whole time, to just repeating my claim:

Russia's demands was a commitment to neutrality, obviously stronger than NATO literally explaining on their own website that Ukraine abandoned non-alignment and passing laws to make NATO membership a strategic foreign policy objective. — boethius

What do you even perceive yourself to be doing?

Even putting aside your just ignoring the previous discussion, Do (or did) you genuinely believe that I'm claiming Ukraine "abandoned non-alignment" for fun? Or because Zimbabwe might invade at any moment?

Obviously Ukraine wants to be in NATO for protection and deterrence towards Russia.

The problem, as you may have noticed, is that Ukraine isn't in NATO and the process of trying to get into NATO for protection from a war may (and obviously will in this case) cause exactly the war you are trying to avoid.

Joining NATO is at best a gambit with some odds of success, a gambit that has clearly failed (just odds are basically zero, so it's not a gambit but rather defiantly asking to be invaded which is what has happened).

If you want to argue that gambit was a good one, just so happens caused the war it was meant to prevent, go ahead.

If you want to argue that countries should pursue "what they want" in the name of "rights and freedom" even if it will very likely cause the mass trauma, depopulation, economic destruction, and hundreds of thousands of KIA and permanently wounded: feel free to explain this subtle political art that justifies such a course of action.

The only way out of the war for Ukraine before the war and since the war started and now, was and is diplomacy.

Putting in your constitution your goal is to join NATO is simply taunting Russia to invade for no benefit: as probability of NATO letting Ukraine in before the war is exactly the closest value you can get to zero and still be able to perform statistical calculations of some kind in a world ruled by quantum mechanics.

I have specifically stated that Ukraine has been neutral at the time of Crimea annexation. ssu has acknowledged that by repeating your own quote that the policy has been TERMINATED. That specific word means it has ended, was finished, it was no more. How from that you have concluded that ssu (or me) claim that Ukraine has been 'neutral the whole time', only you can know.

The simple fact is that when Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine was neutral, as its constitution stipulated. True, it has been previously vaguely promised NATO membership, but at the same time it was excluded from the membership action plan, which was the necessary condition for accession. It was supposed to be 'reviewed' in December 2008, but it never was. That (and the declining support in Ukraine, due to the politicization of the issue) led to the change of the policy from 'seeking membership in NATO' to 'declaring neutrality'. That is why your own quote says 'From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy'. The policy was later TERMINATED, due Russian invasion, which means it has ended. The same thing happened to Sweden: it was a neutral country for a long time but then it decided to join NATO, as the Wikipedia article states. It does not mean that because Sweden has done that, then it has never been neutral, because it was not 'permanent'. That is why Sweden and Ukraine are on the 'List of formerly neutral countries' in the very same Wiki article.

You claim that I 'rewrite history' and then proceed to quote two sources that confirm exactly what I wrote. Are you surprised that I question your reading comprehension?

If Russia wants to keep Ukrainian Land then they should just move civilians in to live on it. Seems to be legit for Israel to do.

That's actually the context for the current conflict. Stalin, worried about Ukrainian nationalism, which had been a potent force during the Russian Civil War (e.g Nestor Makhno) put into place policies that amounted to the "enforced starvation of the Ukrainian population." This was paired with arrests and executions of Ukrainian cultural and political leaders and the destruction of cultural artifacts. Stalin's policies killed 3.5-5 million Ukrainians from 1932-1933, around 1 in every 10 people.

According to Lemkin, Ukraine was "perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification – the destruction of the Ukrainian nation". Lemkin stated that, because Ukrainians were very sensitive to the racial murder of its people and way too populous, the Soviet regime could not follow a pattern of total extermination (as in the Holocaust). Instead the genocidal effort consisted of four steps: 1) extermination of the Ukrainian national elite, 2) liquidation of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, 3) extermination of a significant part of the Ukrainian peasantry as "custodians of traditions, folklore and music, national language and literature", and 4) populating the territory with other nationalities with intent of mixing Ukrainians with them, which would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Ukrainian nation.

While Ukraine was being drastically and intentionally depopulated of Ukrainians (and Jews), Stalin began settling Russians and some other minorities in the land, particularly out East. These populations were provided with food, with the net result being that Ukraine went from about 9% Russian to 1/5th. (A large wave of mass deportations after WWII also helped achieve this). This was not unique to the Soviets. The Russian Empire had long used forced resettlement to secure territory, and you can see such tactics in use as far back as Babylon and Assyria.

And indeed, the current war has largely been justified for internal Russian audiences in terms of the need for Russia to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine from oppression and assault.

To a much lesser extent, Russia has done similar things in this war, moving people into occupied territories and sending children with living Ukrainian parents to adoption programs so that they can be "raised as Russians." But such things, while certainly reprehensible, are on an absolutely tiny scale compared to the Soviet atrocities.

So, that is sort of the background, particularly for the conflict over the Donbass. But it would be a mistake to frame it as purely an ethnic conflict, because, as a whole, ethnic Russians with Ukrainian citizenship have also opposed Russia's invasion of their country. Thankfully, this old history doesn't have the same salience as it does in Israel. There isn't any popular movement to remove the Russians from these areas (Kremlin propagandists would disagree of course.)

Of course, being an English language forum, we hear more about "NATO expansion/aggression" as the cause of the invasion, not "the genocide in the Donbas." It seems to me that English-language efforts to justify the war have completely given up on selling that narrative.

↪boethiusI have specifically stated that Ukraine has been neutral at the time of Crimea annexation. ssu has acknowledged that by repeating your own quote that the policy has been TERMINATED. That specific word means it has ended, was finished, it was no more. How from that you have concluded that ssu (or me) claim that Ukraine has been 'neutral the whole time', only you can know. — Jabberwock

First, you explain yourself that Ukraine and NATO are holding talks, going towards NATO membership:

NATO

True, it has been previously vaguely promised NATO membership, but at the same time it was excluded from the membership action plan, which was the necessary condition for accession. It was supposed to be 'reviewed' in December 2008, but it never was. — Jabberwock

Which does not satisfy the criteria of a neutral country.

Your argument that Ukraine was neutral in 2014 is basically explaining that it wasn't neutral but was "vaguely promised" to join NATO and then some bureaucratic hangups: tada! neutrality!!

Now, the point of "termination" of non-alignment is simply to establish that obviously Ukraine is not neutral in 2022.

We were discussing what Zelensky could do to avoid the invasion in 2022.

Obviously Ukraine has no commitment to neutrality in 2022 whatsoever, literally has joining NATO in its constitution, and my point is committing to neutrality may have avoided the war.

More importantly, as Ukraine had and has no allies, committing to neutrality costs Ukraine nothing.

But let me get this straight, your counter argument is that the war was guaranteed and committing to neutrality would have changed nothing (in 2022, or anytime before) ... because Russia annexed Crimea after an illegal coup by CIA backed forces?

My argument is that declaring neutrality would make the Russian invasion far more costly diplomatically.

The reason the annexation of Crimea (as you note, there's no fighting or invasion as Russian forces are already there) was not difficult diplomatically is because Russia has a giant military base there so partners such as China and India understood the reasons for it.

I.e. neutrality would have real leverage in the real world and significantly increase the diplomatic cost to Russia of an invasion while removing the critical justification (even to the domestic audience) for it.

While hanging on to "we might join NATO someday" is literally zero leverage because NATO isn't going to let Ukraine join anyways.

However, are you really arguing that an illegal coup backed by the CIA is non-alignment, as well as the relationship between Ukraine and NATO prior to 2014 would satisfy the definition of a neutral country as per Wikipedia? (i.e. that Ukraine in 2014 was neutral just like Ireland and Costa-Rica and non-neutrality of Ukraine is just in Russia's head?).

We can discuss this if you want.

What the records actually shows is that insofar as Ukraine had leaders willing to navigate the situation Ukraine is actually in with some common sense, Russia did not invade as the cost of an invasion was far higher than moving forward diplomatically.

You get rid of the compromiser (who was elected legally) and replace the legal president with Nuland's "our man" and obviously Ukraine is no longer neutral in any way (not even some "formal" way) nor striving for neutrality (being taken over by people, that at least the CIA implies, work for the CIA) and you get the annexation of Crimea and the civil war in the Donbas.

As anyone would expect is extremely likely to happen, just as this much larger war is extremely likely to happen if Ukraine continues on it's delusional path towards NATO.

For those interested in actual reality:

NATO in 2008:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. 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. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia. — NATO's own website, 03 Apr. 2008

Then, to avoid being invaded right away, as NATO notes:

From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy — NATO's own website

There's then a coup in 2014, and Russia annexes Ukraine and separatists in Donbas try to separate following this coup.

One party here, the "war party" as implied by @ssu, would have us believe that Ukraine's status as a neutral country is totally clear 2010-2014.

The reality is that this issue of neutrality or then trying to join NATO or then wanting better ties with Russia (for example to avoid being invaded and destroyed), is extremely controversial in Ukrainian society. There are large groups of people on each side of this policy issue.

Russia does not annex any territory nor invade the time this discussion within Ukraine takes place.

Ukrainians legally elect someone who is a compromiser with Russia, perhaps because a majority of the Ukrainian people understood at the time, as they have been made to understand all too clearly since, that antagonizing Russia by trying to join NATO does not benefit Ukraine and will cause exactly the war that the point of joining NATO would be to avoid.

The "will of the people" on this point is completely irrelevant to the "pro-democracy" NATO proponents: when the coup is "pro-West" then the will of the people is whatever the West says it is; elections certainly don't matter ... and yet the very same people will accuse Trump rioters in Washington of sedition?!?!?

Now, once the side that is literally backed by the CIA and the US is literally choosing who will lead Ukraine, then Russia annexes Crimea.

And people here would have us believe that the annexation of Crimea has nothing to do with the illegal replacement of the Ukrainian government by the CIA, that it was basking in it's "non-aligned status", happy as a clam, coup's having nothing to do with it and the annexation of Crimea was totally unexpected and everyone was all just Pikachu faced about it.

What the evidence actually supports is that Russia waits for a significant period of time for Ukraine to resolve its status as a neutral country or not.

Because someone else's doing something wrong doesn't make it right? When did the behavior of Israel become the gold standard of what is moral?

You claim that I 'rewrite history' and then proceed to quote two sources that confirm exactly what I wrote. Are you surprised that I question your reading comprehension? — Jabberwock

And yes, you are simply rewriting history.

What is the actual context:

During the 2010 presidential election campaign, Party of Regions leader and candidate Viktor Yanukovych stated that the current level of Ukraine's cooperation with NATO was sufficient and that the question of the country's accession to the alliance was therefore not urgent.[69][70] Yanukovych's victory in the election marked a turnaround in Ukraine's relations with NATO. On 14 February 2010, Yanukovych said that Ukraine's relations with NATO were currently "well-defined", and that there was "no question of Ukraine joining NATO." He said the issue of Ukrainian membership of NATO might "emerge at some point, but we will not see it in the immediate future."[citation needed] On 1 March 2010, during his visit to Brussels, Yanukovych said that there would be no change to Ukraine's status as a member of the alliance's outreach program.[71] He later reiterated during a trip to Moscow that Ukraine would remain a "European, non-aligned state."[72][73]

As of May 2010, NATO and Ukraine continued to cooperate in the framework of the Annual National Program,[74] including joint exercises.[75] According to Ukraine the continuation of Ukraine-NATO cooperation does not exclude the development of a strategic partnership with Russia.[76]

On 27 May 2010 Yanukovych stated that he considered Ukraine's relations with NATO as a partnership, "And Ukraine can't live without this [partnership], because Ukraine is a large country."[77]

On 3 June 2010 the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill proposed by the President that excluded the goal of "integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership" from the country's national security strategy.[78] The law precluded Ukraine's membership of any military bloc, but allowed for co-operation with alliances such as NATO. — Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

Which, as you may again note if have that reading comprehension you covet, is not neutrality, but a compromise position of keeping the status quo. Which, as you note, the status quo did not cause Russia to invade, or even make serious threats such as amassing troops on the border.

The status quo changes when the legally elected president who represents the above compromise position is illegally removed in a coup, by anti-Russian forces explicitly backed by Nuland and the CIA.

Here is an interview with the chief negotiator of Ukraine in March 2022:



A bunch has circulated online about this interview making the points that all Russia wanted was neutrality and Boris Johnson was the reason to reject Russia's offer, but above are the points in context (which isn't quite as simply as Russia offered neutrality and Boris Johnson ordered Zelensky to reject it; although that is one reasonable interpretation).

A few points relevant to our current discussion seem to be clarified about the negotiations by someone who was actually there.

So not only did we know a lot about these negotiations and the Russia offer before, now we know even more!!

Russia's only important interest was neutrality (according to the chief negotiator for Ukraine talking to a Ukrainians journalist), all the other points were "cosmetic, political seasoning" in his words.

He then explains the reasons for rejecting the Russian offer was security guarantees (something we've discussed at length).

Russia was not "pretending to negotiate" but really, really, really wanted a deal.

Boris Johnson did not arrive in Kiev simply for tea or to exchange masterbation tips with Zelensky, but encouraged Ukraine to repudiate negotiations and to fight instead.

I.e. exactly what I have been describing about the negotiations is exactly what happened according to someone who was there.

Now, of course, as I've already analyzed, it is completely possible that the Russian offer was in bad faith and they'd invade again later.

The problem with this reason for repudiating negotiations is that to "fight now rather than later" still required confidence that you can win now, which I would argue had no rational basis.

Especially at that time, the West was only supplying Ukraine with "defensive weapons", at the very least Zelensky should have demanded heavy weapons and air power to accept Boris' proposal of continuing the war.

Boris would have explained they won't get heavy weapons and air power (not anytime soon anyways, not until their current military is absolutely wrecked and advanced weapon systems would only for the purposes of propping up Ukraine a little longer) and then Zelensky would have been able to deduce that the Western offer was a poison pill.

As for taking Russia's offer, certainly there are no guarantees, but if you cannot win now then time is on your side and you should play for time in hopes that "events" transpire in your favour or then to find further diplomatic solutions.

And again, had Ukraine accepted neutrality, the diplomatic cost for Russia to invade Ukraine again would be insanely high. Keeping India, Africa and even China happy to keep trading with Russia would be far harder.

Of course, had the West been discussing also with Russia (as the West does currently with Hamas) then additional guarantees from the West to Ukraine could also have made a peace agreement better for Ukraine.

The West does not hold talks because the West did not want peace and did not want to be in a position to be explicitly refusing any Russian proposals that would make the policy of having the Ukrainians fight the Russians, no peace, perfectly clear.

The West is immediately in talks with Hamas, doesn't remotely have the same policy of "it's between Israel and Hamas" because Western policy is peace in the middle-east is perhaps desirable and this will require negotiations. Of course, the US does not put much pressure on Israel at the moment, but it could become politically costly to support "too much" war crimes and ethnic cleansing and so its important to have peace as an option, and that requires talking to both sides.

Notice how no one criticizes the West for "talking with Hamas".

US reveals ‘excruciating’ five-week negotiations behind Israel-Hamas deal

A secret cell headed by CIA and Mossad chiefs, and multiple contacts between US President Joe Biden and leaders of Israel, Qatar, and Egypt underpinned an "excruciating" five weeks resulting in the truce agreement, a US official said. — France 24

CIA cells, multiple contacts between President Joe Biden, did not, and are not, trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine-Russian conflict, no matter how "excruciating" ... why?

Because the West does not care about Ukraine or Ukrainian lives, and won't do anything whatsoever to contribute to a peace and if it seems like it could happen anyways, actively discourages it by sending Boris Johnson and his sophisticated Oxford debate skills to put an end to such nonsense.

If Israel is allowed to do it, why can't Russia?

That's the whole point of what I'm getting at.

If Israel is allowed to forcibly remove population and replace it with its own, why can't other countries? — Vaskane

Yet the obvious answer here is: using force to annex territories is against international law in both cases!

It's the US that has a moral dilemma here, other countries are pretty consistent on this. Maps still used here in my country do separate the West Bank and Gaza from Israel as they don't draw Crimea belonging into Russia. I think only one country gives that unwavering support for any action Israel makes.

The reality is that this issue of neutrality or then trying to join NATO or then wanting better ties with Russia (for example to avoid being invaded and destroyed), is extremely controversial in Ukrainian society. There are large groups of people on each side of this policy issue. — boethius

More proper would be to say "was extremely controversial" and "there were large groups".

But of course, that the attacked unified Ukraine naturally is accepted by some here.

Which does not satisfy the criteria of a neutral country.

Your argument that Ukraine was neutral in 2014 is basically explaining that it wasn't neutral but was "vaguely promised" to join NATO and then some bureaucratic hangups: tada! neutrality!! — boethius

No, not 'some bureaucratic hangups', but a distinct change in the policy, which Yanukovych clearly stated in your own quote, and adopting the law that precluded Ukraine's membership of any military bloc, but allowed for co-operation with alliances such as NATO. That is exactly what neutrality mean according to your own clear criteria of a neutral country, i.e. the Wikipedia article which clearly states that in 2014 Ukraine was neutral. That your own quoted source discredits your view is not exactly my problem, is it?

We were discussing what Zelensky could do to avoid the invasion in 2022. — boethius

But that was not what my quote referred to. You have simply misunderstood it from the beginning. That happens, what is ridiculous that you try to double down on your claims with quotes that clearly support what I wrote (now you have added the third one).

But let me get this straight, your counter argument is that the war was guaranteed and committing to neutrality would have changed nothing (in 2022, or anytime before) ... because Russia annexed Crimea after an illegal coup by CIA backed forces? — boethius

No, the war was not guaranteed, but indeed the declaration of neutrality would have changed nothing, given that Russia has no problems with attacking a neutral country (as defined by your own sources), which it did in 2014.

My argument is that declaring neutrality would make the Russian invasion far more costly diplomatically.

The reason the annexation of Crimea (as you note, there's no fighting or invasion as Russian forces are already there) was not difficult diplomatically is because Russia has a giant military base there so partners such as China and India understood the reasons for it.

I.e. neutrality would have real leverage in the real world and significantly increase the diplomatic cost to Russia of an invasion while removing the critical justification (even to the domestic audience) for it. — boethius

But that is obviously false, given that Russia has invaded the neutral Ukraine in 2014. If your argument is 'Russian invasions on neutral countries are costly diplomatically, unless Russia has a base there', then I will mercifully refrain from commenting that. Not to mention that it completely overlooks Russia's involvement in Donbas.

We have every reason to believe that Ukraine's neutrality in 2022 would matter as much as its neutrality in 2014, i.e. very little.

There's then a coup in 2014, and Russia annexes Ukraine and separatists in Donbas try to separate following this coup. — boethius

Yes, and at this time Ukraine is neutral. And 'separatists' are mostly Russians imported by Girkin, as we know.

Ukrainians legally elect someone who is a compromiser with Russia, perhaps because a majority of the Ukrainian people understood at the time, as they have been made to understand all too clearly since, that antagonizing Russia by trying to join NATO does not benefit Ukraine and will cause exactly the war that the point of joining NATO would be to avoid.

The "will of the people" on this point is completely irrelevant to the "pro-democracy" NATO proponents: when the coup is "pro-West" then the will of the people is whatever the West says it is; elections certainly don't matter ... and yet the very same people will accuse Trump rioters in Washington of sedition?!?!? — boethius

Well, actually elections do matter: it was the elected members of the parliament who removed Yanukovych from his office by 328-0. If you have any evidence that all 328 legally elected parliamentarians were actually from CIA, please present it. And further elections also did matter, given that Putin himself said that he respects the will of the people, when they have elected Poroshenko (the house speaker, Turchynov, has been the interim president according to Ukraine's constitution).

More proper would be to say "was extremely controversial" and "there were large groups".

But of course, that the attacked unified Ukraine naturally is accepted by some here. — ssu

Over a million Ukrainians take refuge from the war in Russia, so even if we ignore political parties and independent journalism and Ukraine becoming a police state with no elections, there are still large groups that want more ties with Russia, enough to move there.

But if you want to believe that all the refugees that fled to Russia are anti-Russian and Ukrainian society has zero dissenting voices to Zelensky's policy, feel free to believe that.

The point, which I assume you agree with, is that in 2008-2014 it is not clear which way Ukraine is going, more towards NATO or more towards neutrality. Ukraine elects a leaders in 2010 that essentially commits to the status quo, which had not caused any hostilities and maintains the status quo without there being any hostilities, until a CIA backed coup changes the status quo, then hostilities begin.

So, we can deduce that Ukraine's being simply "vaguely" committed to NATO "maybe some day" and maintaining the existing relationship with NATO as-is was sufficient to prevent Russia from invading, but a change of the status quo to get rid of the status quo guy, and you get hostilities beginning in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea.

Well I did realize it, but not how significant of a dilemma it truly is. — Vaskane

As I've thought about it, this happens actually mainly for purely domestic political reasons. To put it bluntly, it isn't the 7 million Jewish Americans, it's the 70 million Christian Evangelists for whom Israel is the Holy Land and who want that support to be so staunch.

Someone whom I'm argued against in his views about the war in Ukraine is John Mearsheimer. Yet he does have a point in the case of the US-Israel relation: the "Israeli lobby" is no conspiracy, it is one of those very effective pressure groups that is typical for American politics itself (think for NRA and the gun lobby).

Mearsheimer in this case looks at domestic politics (of the US), which he should do also in the case of Russia too, but he sticks to his theories and doesn't do this.

No, not 'some bureaucratic hangups', but a distinct change in the policy, which Yanukovych clearly stated in your own quote, and adopting the law that precluded Ukraine's membership of any military bloc, but allowed for co-operation with alliances such as NATO. That is exactly what neutrality mean according to your own clear criteria of a neutral country, i.e. the Wikipedia article which clearly states that in 2014 Ukraine was neutral. That your own quoted source discredits your view is not exactly my problem, is it? — Jabberwock

Again, "what neutrality mean according to your own clear criteria of a neutral country"?

A neutral country is a state that is neutral towards belligerents in a specific war or holds itself as permanently neutral in all future conflicts (including avoiding entering into military alliances such as NATO, CSTO or the SCO). — Neutral Country - Wikipedia

"Co-operation" with alliances such as NATO does not fit the definition of neutrality according to the above definition. Co-operation could exist between NATO and a neutral country if it was for some clearly humanitarian purposes, but no one would claim that "cooperating" with a military alliance is a country that "holds itself as permanently neutral".

The status is not neutral but instead ambiguous (which is not neutrality).

He said the issue of Ukrainian membership of NATO might "emerge at some point, but we will not see it in the immediate future."[citation needed] On 1 March 2010, during his visit to Brussels, Yanukovych said that there would be no change to Ukraine's status as a member of the alliance's outreach program. — Ukraine–NATO relations

Nevertheless, this ambiguity of intentions, playing footsie with NATO, is sufficient to avoid a Russian annexation of Crimea.

However, you get rid of the person that made this ambiguous "maybe NATO, maybe not, neutral but cooperating with NATO" policy in a coup and it's reasonable to assume that the policy is likewise gone.

You're basically arguing: Ukraine was neutral because Yanukovych made it neutral!

Ukraine was not neutral, but the status was at best ambiguous: declaring simultaneously non-alignment ... but not excluding cooperation with NATO, which is basically a contradiction: "We're not choosing sides, but we're allowed to choose this particular side" is not a constitutional declaration of neutrality.

The actual reality, as I've described, is that Ukrainian society is divided on which way to go, so elects a compromise candidate. Once there is a CIA backed coup, it is clear pretty clear which way things are going.

So Russia annexes Crimea to hedge the risk of a completely belligerent Ukraine.

The issue of neutrality remains unresolved.

From 2014 to 2022, Russia tries to resolve the issue of neutrality diplomatically.

Since there is an active border dispute, Ukraine is exceedingly unlikely to join NATO during this time, so there is time to see if there's a diplomatic resolution but the war in the Donbas can't be sustained forever either.

What immediately precipitates the full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia is Ukraine amassing troops of their own to finish off the separatists.

These are the actual series of events, if you want to live in reality.

The argument that Russia would not be satisfied with neutrality since 2008 is an extremely weak one. Even a vague neutrality does not cause any Russian annexations, much less a full scale invasion.

Since Ukraine has no allies, and has essentially zero chance of getting any allies before the war in question (when allies would be useful to have), committing to neutrality is of low cost to Ukraine but would have significantly increased the diplomatic cost to Russia; perhaps enough to deter annexation and later invasion, perhaps not, but there is no point in fighting a losing war anyways in these circumstances. Sending hundreds of thousands of people to die "on principle" of what sovereign countries should be able to do, is not a moral nor politically astute position.

I don't think the US shows the Occupied Territories as part of Israel on any official maps either. The US generally refers to them as "Occupied Territories." This is why Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a big deal; it was a tacit, if not open acknowledgement of Israel's possession of the land.

Way back in 1995, Congress passed an act urging that the embassy be moved there, but presidents of both parties demurred, seeing it as needlessly provocative.

US policy towards Israel hasn't always been a "blank check," e.g. forcing them out of the Suez. Rather, it seems to have evolved more towards one due to electoral pressured within the US and ill conceived GWOT policy.

Anyhow, I think the comparison to Ukraine is useful at showing just how counter productive Israel's apartheid policies have been. In Ukraine, no one outside of a very small fringe want to expell the 17% or so of the population that are ethnic Russians, a good deal of whom were settled there by force as recently as the 1930-1960 period. The groups get along and have a shared identity, despite the horrors of the 1930s.

Yet in the case of Israel, its almost impossible to imagine an empowered PA state deciding that Israeli settlers were "a part of our community." Point being, peoples can overcome historical bad blood, but not if they live in largely separate ecosystem. It's a core example of Israeli apartheid undermining their own security.

If Ukraine remained technically neutral, it's only because it has no allies.

Russia's demands was a commitment to neutrality — boethius

Obviously if you declare your intention to join a military alliance and that military alliance not only creates all sorts of military partnerships and support but also reciprocates and publicly declares they'll let you in oh ... some day, that is not neutral.

If "neutrality" language is left in law or the constitution it is clearly irrelevant. — boethius

We were discussing what Zelensky could do to avoid the invasion in 2022.

Obviously Ukraine has no commitment to neutrality in 2022 whatsoever, literally has joining NATO in its constitution, and my point is committing to neutrality may have avoided the war.

More importantly, as Ukraine had and has no allies, committing to neutrality costs Ukraine nothing. — boethius

Which, as you may again note if have that reading comprehension you covet, is not neutrality, but a compromise position of keeping the status quo. Which, as you note, the status quo did not cause Russia to invade, or even make serious threats such as amassing troops on the border.

The status quo changes when the legally elected president who represents the above compromise position is illegally removed in a coup, by anti-Russian forces explicitly backed by Nuland and the CIA. — boethius

So, taking all these together: What Zelensky needs to do in 2022 is to somehow re-establish the status quo before 2014. And doing so would cost Ukraine nothing, because Ukraine has no allies and is practically neutral, while being obviously not neutral and heavily tied to NATO.

What immediately precipitates the full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia is Ukraine amassing troops of their own to finish off the separatists. — boethius

I'm going to call this a straight up lie until I see evidence.

The strategic situation in the Donbas had not significantly changed just before the 2022 invasion.

But that was not what my quote referred to. You have simply misunderstood it from the beginning. That happens, what is ridiculous that you try to double down on your claims with quotes that clearly support what I wrote (now you have added the third one). — Jabberwock

That's what we are discussing, Zelensky's options in 2022.

My claim is that committing to Neutrality is low cost to Zelensky (and the other leaders needed to make such a change) in 2022 (or before), is low cost because Ukraine has no allies anyways and is not getting into NATO, but high diplomatic cost to Russia.

You then claim that there's no reason to assume neutrality would be sufficient for the Russians because the appearance of "non-alignment" in the 2010 constitutions changes means Ukraine is neutral, and that didn't prevent the annexation of Crimea.

Now, Ukraine is anyways neutral since as well, de facto neutral as it has no allies.

However, neither in 2014, especially during the coup, nor in 2022 is Ukraine making any sort of strong commitment to neutrality.

What we can see is that when there is even vague commitment to neutrality ("non-alignment" appearing in the constitution but paradoxically allowing cooperation with NATO, leaving entirely vague what that could involve), Russia does not invade.

When there is serious ambiguity (serious risk) of what the policy even is, such as in a chaotic coup, Russia annexes Crimea to hedge the risk to its military base there.

The policy then returns to being ambiguous, with 2 Minsk negotiation processes. During these negotiation Russia does not invade.

Then it is only in 2019 that:

On 7 February 2019 the Ukrainian parliament voted with a majority of 334 out of 385 to change the Ukrainian constitution to help Ukraine to join NATO and the European Union.[109] After the vote, Poroshenko declared: "This is the day when the movement of Ukraine to the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance will be consolidated in the Constitution as a foreign political landmark." — Ukraine-NATO relations

It is after this that military and political tensions start to significantly rise leading to the Russian invasion in 2022, during which time Russia repeatedly demands from Ukraine that it declare itself neutral as well as demand NATO commit to not expand further eastward (it would not matter if Ukraine was constitutionally committed to join NATO if NATO officially repudiated further expansion).

Now, if somehow there was some plan to invade Ukraine come-what-may, then Ukraine simply plays into that plan by providing every possible justification (including tolerating literal Nazi battalions going around and doing their thing with NATO provided weapons) Putin would need to sell the war to both partners abroad and the domestic public.

Speaking of Girkin, apparently he is running against Putin as a presidential candidate? But last I saw he was arrested and disappeared, and the last picture we have he looked pretty beat up. Then his lawyer got arrested.

Makes me wonder if he is being coopted as a sort of "controlled opposition," or simply has a death wish.


Back when it seemed like Kadyrov was going to die (after allegedly burying his still disappeared friend and doctor "for poisoning him,"), Strelkov disappeared, and Prigozhin was killed — all in the same few weeks — I began to get serious Game of Thrones vibes from Russian politics. This was back when Shoigu had barely been seen since the coup too. Things seem more stable now.

simply has a death wish. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think he knows he's a dead man anyways, as Putin will not tolerate any challenger, especially not from the nationalist camp. Might as well drive up the political costs for Putin by declaring himself a candidate. Girkin seems to be a gambler - not an unusual disposition given his background. Had the situation in Ukraine deteriorated sharply for Russia, the kind of attack from the nationalistic right he was making might well have succeeded.

So, taking all these together: What Zelensky needs to do in 2022 is to somehow re-establish the status quo before 2014. And doing so would cost Ukraine nothing, because Ukraine has no allies and is it fact neutral, while being obviously not neutral and heavily tied to NATO. — Echarmion

Exactly, Ukraine has and is attempting to become not-neutral and its problem is that it has and remains neutral.

Ukraine has no countries that send soldiers to its aid when it is invaded and mutually declare war on the invading country, and Ukraine has likewise no obligation to come to the aid of anyone or declare war just because someone else is invaded. The de facto status of a neutral country.

Of course, it would be nice for Ukraine if Ukraine was magically inside NATO anytime since 1991.

The problem is that Russia views NATO in Ukraine as a serious security threat and will act to stop that from happening.

Russia will obviously invade Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

We can discuss the morality of this imperialistic position, but moral arguments would not change this reality.

Ukraine declaring it is going to join NATO, and NATO reciprocating by saying Ukraine is going to join NATO and cooperations and partnerships of various kinds and having NATO training and "advisors", are things that will clearly provoke Russia into invading Ukraine.

It's also a terrible strategy to actually join NATO, but if you (and more importantly NATO who has more experience) wanted to join NATO, you'd want to advance that as much as possible in secret. Then, as happened with Finland, you'd want some countries to commit to bilateral mutual defence during the final ascension process to get all the t's crossed and i'd dotted.

Of course, NATO has had zero intention to let Ukraine in, as it could trigger WWIII which no one wants.

The 2008 declaration was likely to test the WWIII waters to see how Russia would react (of course if Russia just lets it happen, then why not).

Zelensky even asks before the 2022 invasion point blank to the NATO commander, a clear time line for when they'll get into NATO (as pressure is building from Russia), and the answer was there is no time line but "the door will remain open", which was perhaps meant as a clear signal that it would be better to go negotiate a peace with Russia (just because the CIA wants to provoke Russia into a war, doesn't mean military commanders do).

The point is, yes, trying to establish the 2010-2014 status quo, or even the pre-2019 status quo where joining NATO wasn't explicitly a constitutional goal.

Of course, by 2022 there is a significant "extreme nationalist" (some Nazi's, some just super nationalists) contingent in Ukraine that rather war with Russia than peace or any sort of compromise. The Russian language repression being one other clear provocative example of the power of the nationalists.

The constitutional changes to make NATO an explicit foreign policy goal was precisely to make peace nearly impossible and prevent any president, such as Zelensky, from being able to negotiate with the Russians.

So, when I say what are Zelensky's best options, I do not mean they were easy to achieve.

Likely, only pressure from the West would have allowed Zelensky to force through a deal with the Russians. Since people would know Boris Johnson came to commit billions and billions in weapons and hard currency support, likely this made Zelensky's position extremely difficult even if he personally wanted the peace deal.

Why I say his main mistake is having no experience and not understanding that if Boris is pressuring him to continue the war he should negotiate conditions that would actually make the war winnable. Then with a clear refusal to commit the necessary weapons, then maybe Zelensky would have the leverage with enough of the nationalists right to negotiate some sort of peace. Some people, no matter how nationalistic, would see the logic of not losing a war.

I don't think the US shows the Occupied Territories as part of Israel on any official maps either. The US generally refers to them as "Occupied Territories." This is why Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a big deal; it was a tacit, if not open acknowledgement of Israel's possession of the land. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true. And of course one thing no other administration had yet done.

Comes to mind the irony when the US got Morocco to normalize relations with Israel as it accepted that Western Sahara is part of Morocco.

US policy towards Israel hasn't always been a "blank check," e.g. forcing them out of the Suez. Rather, it seems to have evolved more towards one due to electoral pressured within the US and ill conceived GWOT policy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is quite true and I've said it myself, actually. The real divider was the six-day war. This was the glorious achievement that Israel gave the US when then Soviet backed Egypt and Syria (and Pan-Arabism) was defeated. Before Israel's closest ally was France.

Anyhow, I think the comparison to Ukraine is useful at showing just how counter productive Israel's apartheid policies have been. In Ukraine, no one outside of a very small fringe want to expell the 17% or so of the population that are ethnic Russians, a good deal of whom were settled there by force as recently as the 1930-1960 period. The groups get along and have a shared identity, despite the horrors of the 1930s. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And it should be noted that the invasion in 2022 actually united Ukrainians quite well. I don't think that there's anymore a language issue (something similar happened in Finland during the Winter War).

Yet in the case of Israel, its almost impossible to imagine an empowered PA state deciding that Israeli settlers were "a part of our community." Point being, peoples can overcome historical bad blood, but not if they live in largely separate ecosystem. It's a core example of Israeli apartheid undermining their own security. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've all the time said that there isn't a peaceful solution for the Israel-Palestinian question. That's the tragedy here.

Or then there is the way like the militaristic Europeans came to be pacifists and have this integration effort even to this day: have such violence as you had in WW1 and WW2 and then it's enough of bloodshed.

Or then there is the way like the militaristic Europeans came to be pacifists and have this integration effort even to this day: have such violence as you had in WW1 and WW2 and then it's enough of bloodshed.

Exactly. Although, I've heard pessimists chalk this up to all the ethnic cleansing in that period, which effectively homogenized many areas. I think it's something like 15 million Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe, with a further 500,000 to 2.5 million civilians being killed (1940-1948).

I prefer to be an optimist. That we don't hear about some great German project to reclaim all this land to the east, parts of which they had held for centuries, says something about peoples ability to move on given the right context.

The Ukraine war, like the Winter War and Soviet-Polish War before it, seems like the opposite phenomenon. A self destructive inability to move on. Putin's own words on the subject certainly seem to look backwards more than forwards.

Again, "what neutrality mean according to your own clear criteria of a neutral country"? — boethius

List of formerly neutral countries: Ukraine: After Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine's parliament voted to drop non-aligned status on December 23, 2014. — Neutral Country - Wikipedia

The authors of the very article you quote describe Ukraine as neutral till 2014.

"Co-operation" with alliances such as NATO does not fit the definition of neutrality according to the above definition. Co-operation could exist between NATO and a neutral country if it was for some clearly humanitarian purposes, but no one would claim that "cooperating" with a military alliance is a country that "holds itself as permanently neutral". — boethius

That depends on what the cooperation involves. Sweden has long coooperated with NATO and it is listed as formerly neutral country, Moldova cooperates with NATO and it is listed as neutral... So it is obviously false that 'no one would claim' that: the authors of the very article you quote do so. Either the authors of the definition you quote do not understand their own definition or you misunderstand it or interpret it incorrectly. Not to mention that even Russia has cooperated with NATO all these years (it held joint military exercises in 2011, for example).

Nevertheless, this ambiguity of intentions, playing footsie with NATO, is sufficient to avoid a Russian annexation of Crimea.

However, you get rid of the person that made this ambiguous "maybe NATO, maybe not, neutral but cooperating with NATO" policy in a coup and it's reasonable to assume that the policy is likewise gone.

You're basically arguing: Ukraine was neutral because Yanukovych made it neutral!

Ukraine was not neutral, but the status was at best ambiguous: declaring simultaneously non-alignment ... but not excluding cooperation with NATO, which is basically a contradiction: "We're not choosing sides, but we're allowed to choose this particular side" is not a constitutional declaration of neutrality. — boethius

It is only because you believe 'cooperation' means 'non-neutrality', which is obviously wrong, as the authors of the very article you quote show repeatedly.

The actual reality, as I've described, is that Ukrainian society is divided on which way to go, so elects a compromise candidate. Once there is a CIA backed coup, it is clear pretty clear which way things are going.

So Russia annexes Crimea to hedge the risk of a completely belligerent Ukraine. — boethius

No, there was no declaration that Ukraine would abandon its military neutrality after the legally elected parliament has removed Yanukovych. There was little popular support for that, as the focus was on establishing the cooperation with the EU. As you wrote yourself, the society was divided over the issue, so your current claim of 'completely belligerent Ukraine' is simply false. 'Hedging the risk' means simply attacking the then-neutral Ukraine just to prevent a possible change of policy.

The argument that Russia would not be satisfied with neutrality since 2008 is an extremely weak one. Even a vague neutrality does not cause any Russian annexations, much less a full scale invasion. — boethius

Well, it is you who needs to support the argument that Russia this time for a change would be satisfied with neutrality, after it has once attacked a neutral country. So far you have given no such evidence. Given that Putin himself has given many different reasons both for invasion and for the escalation, I do not see how you could succeed.

Ukraine declaring it is going to join NATO, and NATO reciprocating by saying Ukraine is going to join NATO and cooperations and partnerships of various kinds and having NATO training and "advisors", are things that will clearly provoke Russia into invading Ukraine. — boethius

Except the two times when Russia did actually invade Ukraine, nothing concerning NATO had recently happened.

So clearly just not joining NATO isn't actually protection against a russian invasion either.

The point is, yes, trying to establish the 2010-2014 status quo, or even the pre-2019 status quo where joining NATO wasn't explicitly a constitutional goal. — boethius

So Russia gets to cuts off choice parts of Ukraine, and when this happens the best thing Ukraine can do is shrug and act like nothing happened?

Of course, by 2022 there is a significant "extreme nationalist" (some Nazi's, some just super nationalists) contingent in Ukraine that rather war with Russia than peace or any sort of compromise. The Russian language repression being one other clear provocative example of the power of the nationalists. — boethius

That did not happen in 2022 and had in fact long since been rescinded.

Except the two times when Russia did actually invade Ukraine, nothing concerning NATO had recently happened.

So clearly just not joining NATO isn't actually protection against a russian invasion either. — Echarmion

A coup getting rid of the person who implemented the "non-alignment" (except cooperation with NATO ) policy is an obvious change the policy. If a political force topples the president due to his "pro Russian policies" it's pretty clear there's a change in both government and thus policies.

Russia act vis-a-vis the risk, the risk that Ukraine is taking a big and, to the Russians, unacceptable step towards NATO is exceeds what they are willing to tolerate, so they mitigate that risk by annexing Crimea and supporting (perhaps causing if the "Girkin is the key" theory is true) the separatists in the Donbas (so there is additional on-going fighting which makes Ukraine joining NATO exceedingly unlikely before it is resolved).

If you want to ague: NO! Ukraine would have remained neutral! Nuland had zero intention to bring Ukraine closer to NATO nor serious cooperation with anyone in Ukraine! She was just riffing bro!! Russia over reacted!!

Ok, I guess you can make that counter-factual argument. But, even so, Russia is reacting to their perception of Nuland's phone calls, other intelligence, and the violent and chaotic nature of the coup.

Then the status is changed in a major way again in 2019, literally putting the aspiration to join NATO in the constitution, and a full scale invasion happens in 2022.

My argument would be that maybe it takes 3 years to prepare a major invasion especially as the pandemic starts in 2019 and is only more-or-less resolved (enough for people to stop caring much about it) in late 2021 (when winter wave fails to be so impressive).

So, unless starting a full scale invasion in the middle of a pandemic is a good idea, it's possible that delayed Russias plans or then 3 years was anyways the minimum to prepare a full scale invasion.

An additional factor is Zelensky is elected in 2019 promising to make peace with Russia, so seeing what Zelensky does, if peace is feasible, is additional reason to wait.

Another big factor is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. This is the other major point of contention along with Ukrainian neutrality. They are also closely connected, as refusing to open Nord Stream 2 would be a strong signal of Europe taking an aggressive posture towards Russia. If the pipeline was opened and business continued as normal with Europe, especially against US protest, that would have been a strong signal that at least Europe does not want any hostilities with Russia ... and there's also the money to consider.

If Nord Stream was opened, the situation in the Donbas remained unsustainable in the long term, but it seems to me extremely likely Russia would not have invaded in 2022, since it was pretty clear (certainly that's what the Western media understood) that Russia was amassing troops as pressure to open the pipeline, and refusing to open the pipeline significantly angered Putin and the Kremlin and invading Ukraine was one outlet for that anger.

So there are other factors, but I would argue that military action in Ukraine was inevitable as long as Ukraine has joining NATO literally in their constitution and a conflict in the Donbas, and 3 years is reasonable time frame to prepare an operation as big as the invasion of 2022. In the meantime there's the pandemic as well as the completion of the pipeline. Pandemic has obvious reasons to wait for its resolution, and the pipeline would have changed the situation in significant ways: would signal Europe has a non-hostile position towards Russia and an independent foreign policy to the US as well as bring in significant money (money that you can then rationalize can support the separatists, at least a little longer); so considering this, my guess would be that Russia would want Germany to get used to the new pipeline and prospering more due to that (strengthening, if not pro-Russian, pro-Russian-gas actors in Germany) and then undertake military action at some later time (potentially the exact same plan, just more active pipelines as leverage, or then tried more limited military options that can be presented as more to do with supporting the separatists than invading Ukraine on 4 different fronts).

The above would be an analysis based on actual facts, but if you want to believe that because 2022 is not literally the same year as 2019 then events in 2022 cannot be triggered by events in 2019 ... I guess be my guest on that.

Russia act vis-a-vis the risk — boethius

Right, but that's the precise problem. If it's the risk that Russia reacts to, then Ukraine's current status is pretty much irrelevant. Ukraine can do whatever it wants to remain neutral. As soon as Russia detects a risk to their interests they nevertheless act.

And since Russia clearly considers some domestic political changes risks, Ukraine would be forever under the threat of Russian aggression as soon as the political situation turns in a way Russia considers too risky.

If Nord Stream was opened, the situation in the Donbas remained unsustainable in the long term, but it seems to me extremely likely Russia would not have invaded in 2022, since it was pretty clear (certainly that's what the Western media understood) that Russia was amassing troops as pressure to open the pipeline, and refusing to open the pipeline significantly angered Putin and the Kremlin and invading Ukraine was one outlet for that anger. — boethius

Russia amassing troops made sure the pipeline would not be opened. The idea that Ukraine was just s convenient "outlet for that anger" is just utterly ridiculous, especially since you acknowledge the invasion must have been planned well in advance.

So there are other factors, but I would argue that military action in Ukraine was inevitable as long as Ukraine has joining NATO literally in their constitution and a conflict in the Donbas, and 3 years is reasonable time frame to prepare an operation as big as the invasion of 2022. In the meantime there's the pandemic as well as the completion of the pipeline. — boethius

It seems unlikely that the pipeline played much of a role. It seemed to still be on track in summer 2021 and was first suspended in November 2021. Invasion plans must have been well underway by then.

The event that seems most likely to coincide with the beginning of definite invasion plans is Putin's success in altering the constitution so he can be president for life. It seems plausible that, at this point, in the middle of the chaos caused by COVID-19, he felt Russia was strong enough to just get rid of the Ukrainian problem permanently.