So your claim that 'Bucharest was much more threatening' is pure assertion, not based on any evidence. — Jabberwock
Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession. — Jabberwock
I give you direct quote from Putin, yet you insist he thought then something else. — Jabberwock
But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged.
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
Except there was no particular push, as you are obviously unable to provide any evidence for it. — Jabberwock
Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — Jabberwock
If what you said was true, then at that time Russia should not care much about what happened in Ukraine, as the main threat, in your opinion, has been removed. But we know that is not what happened - Russia has seen the EU integration at least as an equal threat and decided to derail that process — Jabberwock
But that does not suit your narrative that the US somehow changed its policy and 'did' something in 2008 to which Russians only reacted at that time (for which, it should be again noted, you have given no evidence — Jabberwock
Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession.
Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.
[…]
In the years that followed, Putin grew increasingly outspoken in his displeasure at NATO’s inroads into Eastern Europe, saying at a high-profile speech in Munich in 2007 that “it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.” In the summer following NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine, Russia invaded the former. Six years later, as Kyiv stepped closer to an economic partnership with another Western bloc, the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.
Except Russia’s own statements, Burns’ memo to Rice, Germany and France’s statements, etc. All of which you dismiss. So your judgment of what constitutes “evidence” is worthless to me. — Mikie
Funny— I too have quotes from Putin. Several and, more relevant, from 2008. In fact I also give quotes from the US ambassador, and can provide statements from Germany and France leaders at the time as well. Yet you “insist [they] thought something else.” In fact you just ignore all of it, since it’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative of a sudden “irrational” change. — Mikie
There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless. — Mikie
Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”
Your story just isn’t serious. — Mikie
And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation. — Mikie
Ask the Russians what the issue was if you don’t believe me. The US was pushing for NATO forever, and Russia’s position has been the same forever— since 91. The difference, however, is that it looked like it was truly going to happen, and soon. With both Ukraine and Georgia. — Mikie
Just like you ignore all the evidence that the Russian reaction has more to do with their internal politics and perceived strength than with the concrete state of NATO membership. — Echarmion
Of course that matters. It’s a truism.
But thanks for interjecting with claims about strawmaning and motivated reasoning while you demonstrate exactly that. — Mikie
Except Russia’s own statements, Burns’ memo to Rice, Germany and France’s statements, etc. All of which you dismiss. So your judgment of what constitutes “evidence” is worthless to me. — Mikie
Funny— I too have quotes from Putin. Several and, more relevant, from 2008. In fact I also give quotes from the US ambassador, and can provide statements from Germany and France leaders at the time as well. Yet you “insist [they] thought something else.” In fact you just ignore all of it, since it’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative of a sudden “irrational” change. — Mikie
What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to? — Mikie
There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless. — Mikie
Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.” — Mikie
Maybe you’re just playing games at this point.
I’ll repeat once again: NATO is one threat. Not the only threat. Can’t get much clearer.
And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation. — Mikie
Ask the Russians what the issue was if you don’t believe me. The US was pushing for NATO forever, and Russia’s position has been the same forever— since 91. The difference, however, is that it looked like it was truly going to happen, and soon. With both Ukraine and Georgia. — Mikie
It doesn’t matter if you can’t get your head around the reaction. It doesn’t matter if you dismiss or discount their very real warnings because they “changed their minds” in 2004/2005 (Putin in 2004: “'Russia's position toward the enlargement of NATO is well known and has not changed”). It doesn’t matter if you consider it irrational. This was the Russian position. — Mikie
We hope the expansion will foster the strengthening of trust in Europe and around the world and will be an instrument and component in strengthening international security. — Putin calls new Nato 'unhelpful'
Is there CFR a Russian propaganda outlet? They too get the story completely wrong, according to an internet guy. — Mikie
And yes, the change was somewhat fast, — Jabberwock
What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to?
— Mikie
As I have already written, he was opposed to it — Jabberwock
Again, asserting the existence of evidence is not evidence. If it is 'abundant', you should have no problem with providing it. Yet somehow you do not. — Jabberwock
Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”
— Mikie
I have SPECIFICALLY written that the process was shelved between 2008 and 2014, and I did it several times, so what 2021 has to do with it? Sometimes it seems you do not even read what you respond to. — Jabberwock
So you got it completely backwards, if there was a 'someday' declaration, then it was the one from Bucharest. Which is further confirmed by the following events: after 2008 the integration efforts have slowed down and the path toward Ukraine's neutrality has been followed. — Jabberwock
The US position has not changed a bit since then, the Russian position did, which prompted the reaction of Germany and France (and the internal support in Ukraine), as shown in the documents. Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — Jabberwock
And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation.
— Mikie
Oh, so now the EU cooperation is also the US fault. Is that your 'understanding of the situation'? — Jabberwock
No, the EU cooperation (not expansion, you are confused again) was not a 'Trojan horse' and it was not a separate 'threat' from NATO, as you believe. — Jabberwock
These are (as I have already written many times) just aspects of the same root cause of the conflict, i.e. the Ukrainian drive toward independence from Russia. — Jabberwock
So yes, he clearly disapproves, but says it should not affect the relations — Jabberwock
They literally write that 'In the YEARS that followed, Putin GREW INCREASINGLY outspoken in his displeasure at NATO’s inroads into Eastern Europe', so if that was supposed to show that Putin's position did not change, you have picked just the quote that says the exact opposite. It confirms what I have written many times: over the years Putin's disapproval grew from rather mild to quite strong. — Jabberwock
I think the point is if Putin would have wanted Crimea and the parts of Ukraine if there wouldn't be any NATO, if it would have been disbanded after the Cold War.Of course that matters. It’s a truism. Whether it has “more to do” with it is the point. — Mikie
It wasn’t fast — it was the same position all along. It was the same position in the 90s, in 2002, in 2004, and in 2008. As I’ve shown multiple times now. — Mikie
Okay, so your quote from 2002 is useless. He was opposed then, he was opposed in 2008. Did the harshness of the rhetoric change? Of course— as situations change. The position remained exactly the same. — Mikie
I have, again and again. You simply wave your hand and say I haven’t— or that it doesn’t count. Too bad. — Mikie
No mention of 2014. If you want to be clear, then state “it was shelved UNTIL 2014,” not “has been,” which implies up to the present. — Mikie
I hate to be the one to tell you, but theUS has a massive influence in the world, including the EU. — Mikie
I said the complete opposite, in fact. It was not a completely separate threat from NATO— it was related, in fact. From the Russian point of view.
But how nice it must be to save your hand in complete disregard for that perspective, and declare “no, sorry, you’re not threatened— because it’s simply not a threat.” Cool.
It was a threat, and was stated as such. Your dismissals are as worthless as your judgments of evidence. — Mikie
Yes, true. “Independence from Russia,” and into the sphere of US influence. Which according to you was opposed by Russia, but not a threat— that part they were just lying about or using as pretext. — Mikie
Yes, exactly. “I strongly oppose Ukraine joining NATO, but that opposition shouldn’t mean we stop talking.”
It doesn’t mean “Hey, I strongly disapprove of this— but if it happens, no big deal, and shouldn’t affect relations.” You’re just misreading it, in an attempt to support a strange narrative. — Mikie
The US always wanted Ukraine and any other Eastern European nation in NATO (true, “push” is an ambiguous term here) — but pressed for it at various strengths at various times. Russian opposition was always there as well, very consistent— but it’s rhetoric differed in tone at various times.
You want to point to different years, context free, in an attempt to show inconsistencies. The reality is that the US plan for Eastern Europe since 1991 and Russia’s position on those plans have been very stable indeed. All the smoke that’s been blown notwithstanding. — Mikie
See above. His position was the same — true, he grew more outspoken and the rhetoric differed at various times. No kidding. So what? There was also a war started over this, and there wasn’t a war in 2004. That’s very different as well, I’d say. — Mikie
No, it was not the same position. — Jabberwock
No, it is not useless — Jabberwock
No, you have not. — Jabberwock
Can you provide any evidence that the US decides who joins the EU? — Jabberwock
That is rather funny from someone who not long ago claimed that not joining NATO would prevent the war. — Jabberwock
If Russia sees Ukraine's independence as a threat, how is that Ukraine's fault, not to mention the US? Your argument has now devolved to the point that if Ukraine joined trade cooperation with the EU, then it would still be the US fault. It is simply absurd. — Jabberwock
Did the US did that as well? — Jabberwock
On the other hand, if they have expected that Russia would escalate the ongoing conflict anyway, then such attitude would be quite reasonable — Jabberwock
Of course, you are still unable to tell what it was exactly that the US did in 2008 — Jabberwock
See above. His position was the same — true, he grew more outspoken and the rhetoric differed at various times. No kidding. So what? There was also a war started over this, and there wasn’t a war in 2004. That’s very different as well, I’d say.
— Mikie
So now you say that Russia began a war in 2022 over the exact same positions which both the US and Russia held since 1991. Right... Yet somehow I remember you writing 'prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began'... This gets funnier with every post... — Jabberwock
That is rather funny from someone who not long ago claimed that not joining NATO would prevent the war.
— Jabberwock
Except that was never said. I realize that’s what your mind has created, yes. — Mikie
No one said that. But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — but there are others. — Mikie
True — they are all a result of 2008 and US influence in the region.
No, it did not start at the Bucharest summit, which you yourself have acknowledged, citing as one of the causes the Orange Revolution, which happened in 2004.
— Jabberwock
No, it did start at the Bucharest Summit. I mentioned the OR in response to your irrelevant perplexity at why claims differed in 2008 from 2002.
To be clear, by “it” I’m referring to 2022. — Mikie
So your position is that, if Ukrainian NATO membership had not been confirmed in 2008, there would have been no 2022 invasion. — Echarmion
But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — Mikie
My question then is: what was the goal of the 2022 invasion? To prevent NATO membership? — Echarmion
Yes, which it did. But it was stupid, in my view. It’s driven Finland and others right into the hands of the US, and has “lost” Western Ukraine for generations, who will obviously not forget this aggression. — Mikie
AFAIK no one has ever suggested Ukraine could possibly join NATO with an active Russian army on its soil. — Echarmion
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/
I don’t think the official stamp was necessary, given that NATO was all over Ukraine anyway. I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has. — Mikie
I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has. — Mikie
What was the imminent threat from Russia in 2008 that NATO needed to expand to its borders? None. — Mikie
What do you think this statement proves? I don't want to try to guess your point and get it wrong. — Echarmion
More a mess than before, you mean? But then why the full scale invasion? With vague goals and plenty of rhetoric that clearly suggests a major annexation? — Echarmion
That rather than being a miscalculation and a weird aberration, the 2022 invasion is actually the core of Putin's strategy. That all the previous steps were merely expedient holding actions until the main event could be launched. — Echarmion
And just think how different the whole situation would be if Putin wouldn't have taken Crimea and the Revolution of Dignity would have been one in just a line of revolutions in Ukraine? As hard it is for Sweden to join NATO, it would have been a lot harder for Ukraine to join. It's membership would have been as remote as Turkey joining the EU. What US Presidents declare don't matter, they come and go every four to eight years.One could even argue that Putin had played his hand quite well, given that he had gotten Crimea and neutralised both Georgia and Ukraine for a relatively small cost, especially in terms of international relations. — Echarmion
It further proves, in my view, the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine. That means even more NATO training, drills, weapons, etc. All right along the Russian border. And recommitting to Ukrainian membership — Mikie
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. It was an invasion, yes. The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine. — Mikie
There were warnings for months prior to the invasion. Whether it was foregone, I don’t know. But it seems interesting that nearly every time the US escalates, Russia reacts. I don’t think it’s coincidence or some cover story for Russia. I also don’t buy those who try to pretend like there was no escalation, or who dismiss Russian claims. — Mikie
He only then would have had to face the problems in Russian economic growth... which he doesn't have an answer.
Hence a reason for the "Make Russia Great Again" campaign: wars have always worked for Putin! — ssu
The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine. — Mikie
Probably not, but annex a substantial part of it, and probably install a satellite regime in others. — Echarmion
If we go by the peace negotiations that took place in March / April of 2022, the Russians offered peace in return for the independence of Donbas and Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch
It's only when peace negotiations failed (blocked by the US) that they dug themselves in in Kherson and Zaporizhia, and started to prepare for a long war. — Tzeentch
There's nothing to indicate Russia intended to turn Ukraine into a satellite, nor does that appear at all feasible to me. — Tzeentch
It's even unclear whether Donbas would join Russia, or whether it would remain 'independent' and serve as a buffer (though in that case, 'satellite' would probably be the correct term). — Tzeentch
Yes. Russia needs to be an Empire. It cannot be anything else, or it ceases to exist! That is what the present leadership of Russia thinks.I also think that the statements Putin has published - and considering influences such as Dugin - it is likely that Putin does really believe Russia needs to be a world superpower. And this, in his thinking, includes it's right to an economic zone of control and territorial buffer. — Echarmion
It's of course possible that Russia engaged in a major, multi-pronged offensive in order to have leverage for an independent Donbas. It's an insane amount of effort for a minor goal, but It's possible. — Echarmion
What's the evidence for this? — Echarmion
You mean apart from the actual invasion forces, the statements made by Putin and others and the leaked plans to that effect? — Echarmion
How is it unclear? The territories have in fact been annexed by Russia. — Echarmion
Forcing Ukraine to become neutral is far from a minor goal. It would constitute a major US defeat. — Tzeentch
The accounts of the neutral diplomats who were present, as given to us by people like Jeffrey Sachs. — Tzeentch
When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite? — Tzeentch
Yes, there was a massive invasion. Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off. — Tzeentch
Yes, after diplomatic negotiations were blocked. — Tzeentch
Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off. — Tzeentch
What? I don't understand this at all. — Echarmion
So you're either unaware of the United States' deep involvement in Ukraine, or trying to deny it.
In either case there's no point in continuing this kind of discussion.
If you're genuinely interested in learning more about this conflict, feel free to read through some of the replies I've dropped here. They'll also include links and sources. — Tzeentch
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.