So your claim that 'Bucharest was much more threatening' is pure assertion, not based on any evidence. — Jabberwock

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.

Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession. — Jabberwock

Seems to contradict your prior statements.

I give you direct quote from Putin, yet you insist he thought then something else. — Jabberwock

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.

On the other band, you give one statement from six years prior, which is both irrelevant and which I have addressed several times— as a reminder, it also contains the following:

But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged.

What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to?

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

There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless.

Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — 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.”

Your story just isn’t serious.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine

Is there CFR a Russian propaganda outlet? They too get the story completely wrong, according to an internet guy.

, whatever they can use against the invaders. The Kremlin, on the other hand, has grander plans (against "The West" and whatever it all may be).

(FYI, Oct 10, 2023 comment on the Middle East crisis)

BBC did not report that Ukraine is sending arms to Hamas, a video was fabricated
^{— Philip Marcelo, Hanna Arhirova · AP · Oct 11, 2023}

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

None of these prove the claim. They all just reiterate the basic fact that Russia is opposed to NATO expansion, which noone denies.

You just refuse to understand the contrary position and are engaging in a duel with a strawman, hence why the discussion is going nowhere.

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

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.

What had changed before 2008 was not Russian willingness to enforce its influence in it's former satellites, but it's ability.

You're discounting the possibility that Putin - and the elite he represents - never intended to accept the collapse of the SU as a world power and always intended to re-establish it - they just lacked the ability.

There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless. — Mikie

So is yours. You're engaging in motivated reasoning.

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

Anything post 2014 cannot support your argument, because of course after the Russian invasion the situation changed.

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

That's a fully general counterargument though. If I go around claiming X is really just a Trojan horse for Y, I can support any arbitrary conclusion.

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

So how come that in both cases - Ukraine and Georgia - Russia opportunistically acted according to local circumstance, rather than reacting directly to Bucharest?

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

:roll:

Of course that matters. It’s a truism. Whether it has “more to do” with it is the point.

But thanks for interjecting with claims about strawmaning and motivated reasoning while you demonstrate exactly that.

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

You're clearly angry and trying to "win" the argument, and it shows. You're not convincing this way, and if you care about actually having a useful conversation - rather than a pointless shouting match, you should change that.

Not angry, but thank you for attempting to read minds.

I hardly consider my conversation with Jabberwock a “shouting match.” But thank you for your input.

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

No, I have quoted them as the explanation of what happened in Bucharest. Due to Russian protests, Germany and France's objections and lack of support from Ukrainians Ukraine was denied the MAP which was the expected step on the path to NATO and instead was given a very vague promise with no specific timeline, i.e. literally 'someday'.

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

That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote. I have already acknowledged two or three times that Putin has strongly objected to the expansion in 2008 (and somewhat earlier), last time I did was at the end of my last post. So no, I do not ignore any of it, I have talked about it in very specific detail - that the Russian stance has significantly hardened since 2002 and what were the reasons for that change. And yes, the change was somewhat fast, but it was not irrational by any measure, it was caused by the internal political changes in Russia itself, which I have already explained twice.

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, just like he was opposed to joining Poland, the Baltics and now Finland. In fact, the statements concerning Finland are practically the same as they were concerning Ukraine in 2002. But there was no talk of red lines whatsoever, on the contrary, Putin's communique at the summit in 2002 clearly states his hopes for closer cooperation with NATO (despite Ukraine entering the Action Plan).

There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless. — Mikie

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.

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.

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

Oh, so now the EU cooperation is also the US fault. Is that your 'understanding of the situation'? 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. 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. For a moment it seemed you began to understand this, but now the hope is lost.

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

That is hilarious... 'The US was pushing for NATO forever'? Yet just a page ago you wrote 'But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership'. So the US was pushing forever, except at times when it was not pushing and was not serious... It is rather clear who is not serious. And confused.

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

BBC still has a report concerning the very meeting that quote comes from. It is reported that 'Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the expansion of Nato will not help meet security challenges facing the world today. But he told Nato chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer that his disapproval should not affect relations with Russia'. He is also quoted:

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'

So yes, he clearly disapproves, but says it should not affect the relations (which is almost the same as the quote from 2002). Does that sound like a red line to you? in fact, it seems Ukraine (which has already entered the Action Plan by this time) was not even mentioned at the meeting.

Is there CFR a Russian propaganda outlet? They too get the story completely wrong, according to an internet guy. — Mikie

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.

And yes, the change was somewhat fast, — Jabberwock

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.

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

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.

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

I have, again and again. You simply wave your hand and say I haven’t— or that it doesn’t count. Too bad.

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

And it seems you don’t even read what you write:

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

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.

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

I hate to be the one to tell you, but theUS has a massive influence in the world, including the EU.

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

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.

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

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.

So yes, he clearly disapproves, but says it should not affect the relations — Jabberwock

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.

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.

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

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.

Of course that matters. It’s a truism. Whether it has “more to do” with it is the point. — Mikie

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.

I say to that hypothetical question yes! He likely would have taken the Baltic states too. Too important! Too close to St. Petersburg, his home town. And "realists" would totally understand and accept this.

There is no overcoming the fact that Putin see's Ukraine as an artificial state and the collapse of the Soviet Union as the biggest tragedy of these times. Hence his "make Russia great again" policy would have happened even without NATO. And that makes the NATO argument very questionable.

And people who doubt this, well, there's country called Moldavia, with Russian "peacekeepers" and a proxy state called Transnistria and a frozen conflict. And Moldavia isn't wanting to join NATO.

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

No, it was not the same position. Your claim was that it was always a 'red line', which is not true, as I have shown multiple times now.

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

No, it is not useless, like the other quote from 2004 it shows the change in the attitude. Unless you do not see the difference between 'I oppose it, but it will not change much between us', which is exactly what the quotes say, and 'I oppose it, but the consequences will be terrible', which is the later stance. You have try not to look real hard to not see the difference.

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, you have not. In fact, you cannot even decide whether first the US was 'not serious' and then came the big push in 2008 or whether the push was always there. So, was there a big push in 2008, i.e. did the US change its position then, as you have claimed from the beginning (but for which you have given no evidence and which I have easily countered with clear evidence that the US position has not changed much)?

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

Because I have mentioned it many times before, when we have discussed the issue of training, arming etc. and when I have clearly stated that it was the reaction to invasion and ongoning conflict in Donbas.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but theUS has a massive influence in the world, including the EU. — Mikie

Can you provide any evidence that the US decides who joins the EU? Or is that another of your assertions?

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

That is rather funny from someone who not long ago claimed that not joining NATO would prevent the war. So the trade cooperation with the EU threatens Putin ('BECAUSE NATO!'). If Putin sees everything as a threat, there is no point in appeasing him, is there?

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

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.

Speaking of polls, since 2014 the Ukrainian support for NATO membership has risen from 50% to 70% (from 20% before that). Did the US did that as well? If so, how exactly? It also shows how absurd your argument is - if the NATO membership was the main point of the conflict, then for Ukrainians to actually want to join it would be completely irrational, bordering on suicidal. Joining NATO should be the last thing they wanted. On the other hand, if they have expected that Russia would escalate the ongoing conflict anyway, then such attitude would be quite reasonable - they would join the only organization that could provide them protection. That also explains why they have sought closer military cooperation, training, arming etc. So: is an Internet guy seeing things much clearer than 30 millions of Ukrainians, or possibly they have better idea what is the cause of the Russian agression than you?

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

Sure, I am reading it wrong and you are reading it right. Because 'He does not see it as something that could cloud the relations between Russia and Ukraine.' actually means 'This is a great threat, a big red line and he will start a war over it'. That must be it, it is just that you alone that are capable of seeing this. Right.

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

That is the most sorrowful attempt at backtracking I have seen in a while. You wrote literally that the US 'was not pushing' and that it was 'not serious' about Ukraine's membership. When I have given clear quotes that completely contradict those claims, instead of admitting it, you have made a complete turnaround and now try to pretend that you never claimed it and claimed just the opposite. Seriously... 'There was no official US push until 2008', that is what you wrote, because you were completely unaware of the issues you are trying to discuss. 'The US was pushing for NATO forever', that is what you wrote when you have realized how wrong you were. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that.

Of course, you are still unable to tell what it was exactly that the US did in 2008 (it could not be the 'push', if the push was forever, right?), which was supposed to be your argument...

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...

At least 51 civilians killed in Russian missile strike on village in eastern Ukraine, officials say
^{— Yulia Drozd, Natalya Kushnir, Oleksiy Pshemyskiy, Tatiana Rymarenko, Tatiana Rymarenko · ABC · Oct 5, 2023}
Vladimir Putin says civilian toll from Israeli ground attack in Gaza would be ‘unacceptable’
^{— Reuters via South China Morning Post · Oct 13, 2023}

Paraphrasing Biden to Trump ... Shut up already Pukin.

Why Russia is engaged in a delicate balancing act in the Israel-Hamas war
^{— AP · Oct 12, 2023}

We unfortunately are unable to eliminate collateral damage; You are murdering innocent civilians; they are terrorists.

No, it was not the same position. — Jabberwock

No, it is not useless — Jabberwock

No, you have not. — Jabberwock

Fantastic arguments. “No, opposite.” How tedious.

Can you provide any evidence that the US decides who joins the EU? — Jabberwock

The European countries — from Britain to Germany to France, have basically taken orders from Washington for years.

It’s like asking if the US “controls” the UN.

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.

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

Except I don’t say that. I’m not talking about “fault,” I’m discussing what Russian’s have stated over and over again, and which you ignore.

Did the US did that as well? — Jabberwock

No— Crimea did that.

On the other hand, if they have expected that Russia would escalate the ongoing conflict anyway, then such attitude would be quite reasonable — Jabberwock

And so we’re back to the beginning. What was the imminent threat from Russia in 2008 that NATO needed to expand to its borders? None.

The claim you’re making is that Russia would have invaded anyway, regardless of US influence. Well, we won’t ever know, will we? But it’s a nice, unfalsiable story to tell to justify US imperialism. “Hey, they would have done it anyway, so might as well go ahead with it despite dire warnings.”

Perhaps the US should talk about including Taiwan as part of a military alliance, start training troops, offering supplies, etc. China has been clear about where it stands, but we should go ahead with it regardless, since China would probably start a war anyway.

Of course, you are still unable to tell what it was exactly that the US did in 2008 — Jabberwock

“Ukraine will be a member of NATO”. This is at the NATO summit. Plans were set to be put in motion. It’s true that they weren’t, yes. But that set the stage for where we are today.

You’ve provided nothing equivalent prior to Bucharest.

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

I don’t see how this is confusing. The Russian position on NATO was very clear — for years. So yes, a reaction to a renewed intent (even referring to the 2008 summit) to have Ukraine join NATO, as communicated in 2021, shouldn’t be a shocker. Quite consistent, in fact.

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

Well what you said was this:

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

And this:

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. And I think it's reasonable to assume that you mean to say there would have been no invasion at all in a similar timeframe. Otherwise all you're saying would be that different events would be different.

My question then is: what was the goal of the 2022 invasion? To prevent NATO membership?

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

Let me rephrase, since it’s apparently confusing: there would (likely) be no invasion. True, I assumed we all agree I don’t have a Time Machine so can’t be 100% certain. You got me.

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.

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

How did it do that?

Russian troops were on Ukrainian soil since 2014. AFAIK no one has ever suggested Ukraine could possibly join NATO with an active Russian army on its soil.

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.

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

What do you think this statement proves? I don't want to try to guess your point and get it wrong.

I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has. — Mikie

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?

For context, prior to 2022 I would have agreed with your assessment. 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.

But after 2022 this argument is seriously weakened. Because now a different interpretation, that is consistent with the evidence, suggests itself: 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.

Without suggesting a moral equivalence, I think a comparison to Germany in 1939 is apt. Until the invasion of Poland, it was still plausible (to contemporaries, anyways) to interpret Hitler's actions as merely a revision of Versailles and attempt to join the German people. Afterward, not so much.

What was the imminent threat from Russia in 2008 that NATO needed to expand to its borders? None. — Mikie

What was the imminent threat to Russia in 2008 from NATO needing to expand to Russian borders? None. You are unable to argue why one needs to reason from Russia's perspective to attribute blame or most of the blame to the US. You didn't even explain why in 2023 Ukraine is not part of NATO yet if the US gives orders to its allies and wanted Ukraine inside NATO so badly since 2008, since ever.

What do you think this statement proves? I don't want to try to guess your point and get it wrong. — Echarmion

Appreciate it.

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.

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

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. It was an invasion, yes. The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine.

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

But the evidence for that isn’t convincing.

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.

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

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.

Without the annexation that went too far (Crimea), Russia could have easily been "the adult in the room". Germany would have continued to rely on cheap Russian energy and basically the West would have continued it's de facto dearmament it had started since the end of the Cold War. Russia's actions in Georgia and overall in the Caucasus would have been forgotten (because it's Caucasus, a Wild East just like the Middle East).

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!

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

We do agree, though, that NATO would never (outside of it already being in a hot war) admit a country that is already in an active armed conflict with Russia, right?

So this is US support that falls short of actual membership, and I think people, including Russia, understand it as such.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. It was an invasion, yes. 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.

That goes a long, long way beyond preventing Ukraine's NATO membership. So this is something your theory should be able to account for. Can it?

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

You don't buy it. Alright. But since this is a forum, and a philosophy forum at that, I'd expect more of an argument than "I don't agree with your assessment".

There's been back and forth for pages upon pages on whether there actually was a US escalation, when it was etc. It doesn't seem useful to rehash them.

Hence my approach of trying to elucidate the Russian motivation, given your theory.

Russia made warnings and demands during the troop buildup, yes. But everyone seems to agree that this was an ultimatum meant to fail, since there is no way rolling NATO back to the 1990 status could succeed.

Is your argument that Putin seriously intended these demands to result in a NATO rollback?

The question remains what exactly the Russian motivation was for the invasion, assuming your theory is correct.

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

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.

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.

In my opinion, this shows Russian goals in Ukraine were not primarily territorial. 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.

There's nothing to indicate Russia intended to turn Ukraine into a satellite, nor does that appear at all feasible to me.

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).

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

And the paratroopers at Hostomel were there for a sightseeing tour, presumably?

No that's not fair to your position. 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.

But where do you take that peace proposal from, exactly? AFAIK the exact proposals made were not public.

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

What's the evidence for this?

There's nothing to indicate Russia intended to turn Ukraine into a satellite, nor does that appear at all feasible to me. — Tzeentch

You mean apart from the actual invasion forces, the statements made by Putin and others and the leaked plans to that effect?

That's not nothing.

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

How is it unclear? The territories have in fact been annexed by Russia.

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

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.

If NATO enlargement would be truly the most important issue here, then you wouldn't go annexing territories and stating that your neighboring countries are "artificial".

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

Forcing Ukraine to become neutral is far from a minor goal. It would constitute a major US defeat.

What's the evidence for this? — Echarmion

The accounts of the neutral diplomats who were present, as given to us by people like Jeffrey Sachs.

You mean apart from the actual invasion forces, the statements made by Putin and others and the leaked plans to that effect? — Echarmion

When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite?

Yes, there was a massive invasion. Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off.

How is it unclear? The territories have in fact been annexed by Russia. — Echarmion

Yes, after diplomatic negotiations were blocked.

Forcing Ukraine to become neutral is far from a minor goal. It would constitute a major US defeat. — Tzeentch

Ukraine has agreed to neutrality every time it was brought up in negotiations.

The sticking point is that Russia always wanted disarmed neutrality while Ukraine has insisted on armed neutrality.

The accounts of the neutral diplomats who were present, as given to us by people like Jeffrey Sachs. — Tzeentch

Like what? I'm not aware of any such accounts, nor how a professor of economics is supposedly privy to them.

When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite? — Tzeentch

When he announced the aim to "demilitarise and denazify".

What else would that mean?

Yes, there was a massive invasion. Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off. — Tzeentch

What? I don't understand this at all.

Yes, after diplomatic negotiations were blocked. — Tzeentch

Remember that funny episode when a member of Putin's cabinet talked on TV about the admission of the Donbas republics as russian subjects before they had even been officially recognised and made such a request?

Forgive me my bluntness, but it is laughable to argue that Russia was unfortunately forced to annex territory by US intransigence. That's russian state TV levels of propaganda.

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.

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

Oh Bullshit!

"Oh I'm sorry you're to ignorant for me to explain please educate yourself".

What an absolute asshole move. You don't want to continue? Fine. No-one is forcing you. But don't dress it up as an unfortunate circumstance forced onto you.

Go ahead and prove your point with argument, or graciously retreat.