So yes, it was very much a factor. EU expansion was also a factor. US-backed coups was also a factor. Add it up, and US influence is all over these events.
But we’re supposed to believe Russia shouldn’t have been worried, that their fears were completely unwarranted, and that NATO was irrelevant — because you say so. — Mikie
I didn’t write anywhere that I want evidences, indeed you can not quote me saying it — neomac
.I’m living and lived in several Western countries, and am pro-West, not specifically pro-Anglo-Saxon World — neomac
And my objections weren’t about the evidences — neomac
I hope you understand that no matter how true these claims are, none of these evidences are sensibly pertinent to answer my question “do you prefer to eat a pizza in an Italian pizzeria or in a Chinese pizzeria?”. — neomac
I do bother because Russia would pay a politician to spread Russian lies not me.
Or are you suggesting me to spread Russian lies for free as you do? — neomac
I didn’t write anywhere that I want evidences, indeed you can not quote me saying it — neomac
Hmmm...
I’m living and lived in several Western countries, and am pro-West, not specifically pro-Anglo-Saxon World — neomac
.
And my objections weren’t about the evidences — neomac
Ah, if your objections weren't about evidence, why do you reject them all? — javi2541997
Again, your arguments against my comments are twisted. I am pretty aware of what you were looking for when you started debating with me. I even answered you more than one time that I would rather live in an Eastern nation than a Western one, and I admitted that an Ukrainian has more right to live in the EU than me, frankly. To argue why I say those things, I provided reliable data along with my comments. Yet, you decided to refuse to accept them. As I said, that's your problem with not accepting that Russia is an important and likeable country, not mine. — javi2541997
On the other hand, the example of Chinese pizzerias is good. Nice try. But you should apply to yourself as well, because you are given as granted that every Western city is more suitable than Russia. I ask you now then: Would you live in Bucharest or Jaén? Don't say that in this part of the globe, life standards are better per se and, because you visited some Western cities, the rest are exactly as you are thinking about. — javi2541997
I do bother because Russia would pay a politician to spread Russian lies not me.
Or are you suggesting me to spread Russian lies for free as you do? — neomac
This is hilarious.
1. Why is a Russian representative necessarily a liar?
2. Again, I am working pro bono to help you to reach out the truth. — javi2541997
Did Russia have a reason to attack Ukraine, when it had a pro-Russian president at the helm and its neutrality confirmed by the pariiament? — Jabberwock
But that’s not what happened. Crimea occurred after the coup, not before and not during. Once it was known that Yanukovych was gone and replaced by a pro-Western leader — yes, they had reason to annex Crimea at that point.
I’m not saying their reasons are “good” reasons or that I agree with them. — Mikie
No it’s you who is twisting things. I asked you one question and expected a pertinent answer. If I ask you: “what time is it?” and your answer is “In Australia is summer”, your answer however true is not pertinent, no matter how many evidences you bring to support the claim “In Australia is summer”. And it’s not my question that needs to be revised to fit your answer, it’s your answer that needs to be revised to fit my question. — neomac
And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. — neomac
I simply asked you to compare avg standard of life between Western countries and Russia. At best you can question or ask me why it is relevant to me to assess AVG standards of life by country — neomac
If you understood the clarifications I’ve given to you in this post, good for you. If you didn’t, I’ll remember you in my prayers. — neomac
I gave you some evidences for MY assessment:Because I already proved why it is not, but I haven't seen any from your side. — javi2541997
And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. — neomac
OK, I say the same regarding my evidences. — javi2541997
For some reasons, this emerged during our debate, and then I did my best at showing data. — javi2541997
And I don't care if you do not trust my sources. — neomac
But your “evidences of why Moscow or Saint Petersburg can be nice cities to live in” is not pertinent to answer the question I asked because I asked about your preference between the AVG standard of life in whole fucking country of Russia compared to the AVG standard of life in a whole fucking European country, like Spain. — neomac
Similar to what's come up before (2022Mar13, 2022Jul21, 2022Oct8, 2022Nov9), suppose that Ukraine had ... ▸ declared neutrality with respect to international military alliance memberships, formally on paper / constitutionally (2022Mar8, 2022Mar9, 2022Mar11); ▸ retained right to self-defense, e.g. from invaders (shouldn't be controversial), including foreign training and/or weaponry as the case may be; ▸ explicitly stated that others respect sovereignty, self-determination, freedom to seek own path (shouldn't be controversial); ▸ actively pursued EU membership, and perhaps sought other such cooperation ... Something along those lines. — Sep 26, 2023
As to the former, now suppose that Ukraine had entered a defense agreement with, say, France, the UK, Luxembourg, Australia, South Korea, Japan, whoever, so that Ukraine had a multinational force (+ gear) present, and those countries had Ukrainian forces present. What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? (Say, anything significantly different from what we're seeing today?) — Oct 6, 2023
The way that you phrased your hypothetical, those other countries would be forming a bloc that would function essentially the same as NATO.
So in that sense it doesn't matter which military bloc or hegemon takes the role of NATO and US respectively, assuming of course there's a credible threat of Russia being kicked out of Ukraine permanently. — Oct 7, 2023
Except it wouldn't. There'd be no NATO expansion involved for example (as linked), but rather a "defense agreement" involving "whoever" (perhaps including China). Okie, so, in this case, we wouldn't expect much difference from the Kremlin from what we're seeing today. (?) — Oct 7, 2023
You are evading the question: was Russia threatened by NATO enough to invade when it had a pro-Russian president and legislated Ukraine's neutrality? — Jabberwock
When Yanukovych was in office, no. When he was thrown out? More so, of course— but still not the main driver. — Mikie
But Yanukovych was ousted due to the course of events initiated by Russians, not by NATO or the US. Russians overplayed their hand, coerced him to abandon the EU trade deal and sparked the protests in the Maidan demanding his ouster. — Jabberwock
No, he was ousted by an uprising with plenty of social engineering and funding from the US — which had been happening for years, in fact. To the tune of billions of dollars (with a B).
You can blame Russia for this — fine. I don’t care to squabble. I’m happy to blame Russia. But again, if we’re interested in their perspective — in what they consider threats, in reasoning for their actions, etc — it’s good to know the full story. Turns out there’s some truth to it.
In any case, whether it was solely Russia’s fault for the uprising is irrelevant— maybe they did push too far, etc. Doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what we’re discussing here. Yanukovych’s overthrow was not something Russia wanted or liked, and they considered this a time when they could lose Ukraine completely to Western influence— the EU, NATO, etc. So they invaded Crimea. Shouldn’t have been a surprise.
Now it’s true a story has been fabricated since then, about Russian imperialism and Putin’s ambitions and so forth— wanting to take over all the old Soviet territories, etc. But that’s only been the official Western-propagated story since 2014, and ignores a great deal of history. It wasn’t the story in 2008, when they pushed for NATO membership and started the ball rolling with our current situation. — Mikie
Oh, so now it is 'social engineering', because you simply cannot accept the fact that it is Ukrainians themselves that finally want to leave the Russian sphere of influence, just like many other countries in the region. You absolutely do not care what Ukrainians think about that. — Jabberwock
But that is one and the same - Russia's imperlalism is exactly the demand to call the shots in its former republics, — Jabberwock
I do— but I’ll repeat myself again: what’s relevant isn’t what I think, it’s what the Russians think. Is there any reason for them to be concerned? What do they say? Do they believe Western forces were involved? Do they mention NATO at all (which you claimed they didn’t)? Yes. Now— is there any truth to those claims? Turns out, yes. Turns out the US was funding pro-democracy groups for years.
Now I’m in favor of democracy. I’m in favor of Ukrainians deciding for themselves what to do. But the topic here is also what Russians perceive, because we’re discussing the causes of their aggressions.
The US would love to have us believe they had no hand in any of this— totally blameless. But we should question whether that’s true. We should listen to the Russians, to our own ambassadors, to dissent scholars, etc., and see if it holds any weight. I think it does, especially given the United States’ role as a world power the last 60+ years. — Mikie
Imperialism was not given as a reason for NATO expansion. But Poland and others already joined— with no invasion, regardless. Ukraine was and is a red line for Russia, as they stated clearly for years. If not wanting NATO on your doorstep is imperialism, so be it. But that’s a stretch, I think. I wouldn’t hear many claiming the US as being imperialist if it annexed Baha in reaction to a Chinese-backed regime change in Mexico. — Mikie
Russia had and has no intention of conquering Ukraine. The logistics don’t add up, among other reasons. The goal us conquest or re-forming the USSR.
If Russia wanted to “call the shots” in all its former territories, it failed miserably. Having some say in whether a neighbor along your borders —with historical and cultural ties to Russia, especially in the east — joins western military alliances and gets dominated by western interests is a little different. — Mikie
I’m in favor of Ukrainian freedom. They should put it to a vote and work it out. But let’s not pretend that Russia hadn’t been screaming about this for years, even before 2014 when the polls started to change. — Mikie
Yes, Russia has lost its grip over the former republics after the fall of the USSR, but that is the exact problem: it wants it back. That is the root problem of conflicts of which Ukraine is only the biggest one. — Jabberwock
Okay— this is an important difference. I don’t buy this.
You said a second before that imperialism isn’t restricted to conquering a region — fine. Now you fall back on the position that Russia does want to take over former republics. Not sure what “wants it back” would mean otherwise. — Mikie
Alright, so by your definition we have two countries with competing geopolitical goals, and thus two “imperial” powers. If that is indeed what is meant, than the US is winning, by far, and from the Russian point of view is quite threatening.
Your claim is that Russia should have no control over Ukraine, a significant piece of the overall power game. I mostly agree — it should be the people who decide. On the other hand, do you also agree the US should exercise no control? That they shouldn’t have pushed for NATO membership in 2008, for example, when the polls showed the people did not want to join it and Russia was posing no threat? Was Russia supposed to just sit back and watch, no matter what happens? Would the US be expected to do so in similar circumstances?
Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it. — Mikie
Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
— Mikie
Not exactly, the two are not even simliar. — Jabberwock
Saying that the US controls, say, Poland or Lithuania in the same way like Russia controls Belarus is simply absurd — Jabberwock
signing the Action Plan and official Kuchma's declaration in 2002. — Jabberwock
The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify clearly Ukraine’s strategic objectives and priorities in pursuit of its aspirations towards full integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and to provide a strategic framework for existing and future NATO-Ukraine cooperation under the Charter. In this context it will be periodically reviewed.
Exactly. One is the good guy, one isn’t. And that’s the fundamental upstream issue by which you interpret everything else. — Mikie
Except I never once said that. The US actions in central and South America are certainly comparable — if not far worse. To say nothing of the atrocities in the Middle East, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, etc. If you want to be serious about “imperial aggression,” comparing the US and Russia is indeed absurd — the US is far worse. — Mikie
Kuchma’s declaration was an attempt to gain favor with NATO. But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership. It had its own problems at the time, and knew very well that this would provoke Russia. There was no official US push until 2008. And it’s US involvement that Russia reacted against, and what’s relevant. — Mikie
The United States supports Ukraine's NATO aspirations and is prepared to help Ukraine achieve its goals by providing assistance with challenging reforms. The United States supports an offer of an Intensified Dialogue on membership issues with Ukraine at the meeting of Alliance Foreign Ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania later this month. — Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Viktor Yushchenko
Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006
The United States is actively engaged at NATO to help Ukraine achieve its NATO goals, including, I should note, support for the Membership Action Plan that Ukraine is interested in. — David Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs June 22, 2006
Ukrainians, Georgians and others were witness to that and wanted to join them. — Jabberwock
I will not argue about that — Jabberwock
Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it.
— President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006
Is he joking or is he pushing? — Jabberwock
Saying that the preparations for Ukraine's joining were 'not serious' simply ignores the historical record. — Jabberwock
So you are saying Russians suddenly turned from a peaceful nation to a belligerent one — Jabberwock
Yet the polling indicated the opposite, and had for years, up to and including 2008. So what Ukrainians are you talking about? Not the people. — Mikie
Good. So just know that the US has a hand in this as well, for decades. This wasn't an accident, and it was done with the full knowledge that it would provoke Russia. That was a mistake. It also wasn't being pushed by the people of Ukraine at that time.
The reason for NATO expansion is obvious. It's part of an overall strategy for Eastern Europe, mostly to do with, ultimately, money. To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable. So the question is: was it worth it, knowing full well that it would eventually provoke a response -- as our own ambassador had warned about? I don't think so. — Mikie
And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest. — Mikie
In view of Ukraine’s foreign policy orientation towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration, INCLUDING ITS STATED LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP, Ukraine will continue to develop legislation based on universal principles of democracy and international law. — NATO-Ukraine Action Plan
It's the US position I was talking about. Prior to Bucharest, there were only the vague statements you provided -- "Someday." That day became much more real, to Russia, in 2008. — Mikie
At a meeting in Vilnius on 21 April (2005), NATO invited Ukraine to begin an ‘Intensified Dialogue’ on Ukraine’s ASPIRATIONS TO MEMBERSHIP and relevant reforms, without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision. — NATO launches ‘Intensified Dialogue’ with Ukraine
Congress [...] endorses the vision of further enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, and urges our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to work with the United States to realize a role for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in promoting global security, including continued support for enlargement to include qualified candidate states, specifically by entering into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and recognizing the progress toward meeting the responsibilities and obligations of NATO membership by Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and UKRAINE. — NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007
No -- their position was quite clear, for years, concerning Ukraine membership in NATO.
Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on. — Mikie
The support for joining NATO was about equal in 2002 and decreased from then (as the Russian opposition increased)[…]So yes, the people. — Jabberwock
Sure, US supported it more than some other countries, but so what? NATO is an organization, the US is influential there, but you are clearly overestimating its power, — Jabberwock
As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — Jabberwock
And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.
— Mikie
Yes, both Kuchma and Yushchenko did choose it — Jabberwock
which part of LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP is that hard to understand that I have to repeat it over and over? — Jabberwock
Can you give ANY evidence that the US position has somehow changed in 2008? Because I can give you a ton of other quotes that show it has basically remained the same for decades. — Jabberwock
In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
[…]
Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.
Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
— Mikie
I have already given you the quote from Putin where he says it will not particularly influence the relations with Ukraine. Have you already forgotten it? — Jabberwock
[...] we clearly know that captured weapons from Ukraine were still transferred by the Russians to the Hamas group. It is mostly infantry weapons.
There is some information that something was going to Hezbollah, but we don't know for sure at this point.
Everyone could see the video on social networks - a completely, let's say, natural for our region and completely unnatural for the Middle East tactic, when FPV drones were used against armored vehicles.
This is the know-how of our war after all. No one other than people who passed through our theater of war could do such a thing. Since we were not there, it means that it was the Russians.
Two more interesting facts. First: a little more than a week before the start of these actions, the Russian station "Sputnik" began to officially speak in Arabic on the territory of Lebanon. This is broadcast in an absolutely propagandist style with clear Russian narratives.
Second: on September 24, a Russian spacecraft capable of conducting radio-electronic reconnaissance and intercepting satellite signals was moved to Israel's geostationary orbit.
Let me remind you that in the period from September 22 to 24, there was an official visit of the Russian military delegation to Iran. We know that there were several, shall we say, wishes from the Iranian side. One of them concerned the expansion of intelligence capabilities.
It is now clear what intelligence information the Russians began to provide to all interested parties. I emphasize that it is not Iran alone, but all interested parties. — Kyrylo Budanov · Roman Kravets, Nazariy Mazilyuk · Ukrainian Pravda · Oct 12, 2023
After the Cold War, many NATO allies scaled down the number of air defence units to reflect their assessment that they faced only a limited missile threat, from countries such as Iran.
Well, it doesn't seem likely that Ukraine would send weapons away. — jorndoe
It does look like the Kremlin is taking or forcing a path to a Cold War II, with some Hot spots, except they've learned from how the last one ended. — jorndoe
And what Putin said at Bucharest:
if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7 — Mikie
Hardly. But nice that you change it up to the EU when convenient. — Mikie
And I think you’re underestimating it. — Mikie
I was very clearly responding to the above quotation you provided, where Bush said NATO membership was open to the “Ukrainian people if they choose it.” As already has been established, the people didn’t choose anything of the sort. — Mikie
Which part of “someday” statements is hard to understand? If you can’t tell the difference, from Russia’s point of view, then you’re not paying attention. Bucharest was much more threatening, and that was obvious at the time. — Mikie
Yes, Bucharest was different from the Russian point of view. Why? Because it was made unambiguous and immediate: “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” — Mikie
Which is a pity. But apparently, you can see into the soul of Putin, and can legitimately disregard these statements because Russia is a bad imperial power, and the US a good one— which supposedly had little influence in all this. — Mikie
I reject that thesis. The US has had massive influence— over other European countries, over financial incentives, over shaping public opinion, and over military training. NATO, along with the general push to make Ukraine a “liberal democracy,” and the integration into the EU, were seen — rightly or wrongly — as a threat to Russia. No obfuscation will change that fact. — Mikie
The one quotation, which is questionable, also contains the opposite sentiment. But in any case, it was stated long before 2008. Notice what I said: “at the time.” Do you not accept that at that time— 2008 at Bucharest—Russia was very clear about its position on Ukraine joining NATO? Burns seemed to think so— and I’ll go with his expertise, and Putin’s statements at the time (along with others), over ONE questionable, contradictory statement from 6 years prior. That you pin your hopes on that, and totally avoid 2008, is just avoidance. — Mikie
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.