It’s not a just war, it’s a Russian imperialistic aggression, but let’s not pretend that there weren’t so many enablers and provocateurs on the NATO/US side. Minsk agreements were basically abandoned from the start and no one enforced them, EU ignored Crimea annexation and continued pumping billions of dollars into Russia (you can see these billions now in form of rockets and bombs in Ukraine), NATO has been expanding to the East and antagonising paranoid Russia.
>Minsk agreements were basically abandoned from the start
Because Russia broke them on the first week, yes.
>EU ignored Crimea annexation and continued pumping billions of dollars into Russia (you can see these billions now in form of rockets and bombs in Ukraine)
How is that western/NATO aggression ?
>NATO has been expanding to the East and antagonising paranoid Russia.
NATO is not an entity that looks to engulf everything. Countries see themselves next to Russia, see the bullshit that happens when Russia doesn't honor its agreements with the CSTO members (Amernia and Azerbaijain duking it out make everyone realize how much of a joke the CSTO is), and decide to join NATO. There is no "NATO expansion", there is no agreement of not letting new countries join either. Noone is forced at gunpoint to join NATO.
All these countries applied to NATO, but it was NATO that accepted their application. It could also refuse their application or just tell them they won’t be accepted if they apply, like they did when Russia joined NATO partnership and wanted to become a member. Inserted NATO decided to expand to Russian borders but not accept Russia. Which was logical, what is a purpose of a military alliance without a powerful enemy?
> All these countries applied to NATO, but it was NATO that accepted their application.
As an eastern european, I hate this rhetoric. Some country feels threatened by Russia, joins NATO, and this is presented as NATO bullying Russia. The country that joined, its citizens and their will is not a subject in this discussion. The country is a thing, discussed like you would discuss a nuclear warhead or military base - it's just a tool the powerful use for their means.
How about you consider what the sovereign people want and stop thinking about them as political playthings.
This "Russia wanted to join NATO but was denied" argument is the same sort of half-truth revisionism like that "NATO promised to not expand east-ward" thing. What may have been "promised" in private conversations behind closed doors by people who most likely weren't even qualified to give such promises doesn't count much unless there's some sort of written agreement.
There is a formal agreement that Germany doesn't station foreign NATO troops in former East Germany. And guess what? There are no foreign NATO troops stationed in former East Germany to this day.
Russia didn't apply to join though, they (Putin) expected special treatment.
The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000.
“Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’
And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
> It could also refuse their application or just tell them they won’t be accepted if they apply, like they did when Russia joined NATO partnership and wanted to become a member.
Russia never applied, they wanted to be special and be asked to apply, they where told that they would have to apply like everyone else.
Number of times Russia attacked any NATO state is exactly 0, same as number of times NATO invaded Russia. What’s your point here?
On the other side, why so limited question? Why not comparing the number of times NATO states invaded some country, and compare with the number of times Russia invaded some country. The relation would probably be somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1.
And btw, why do you call NATO a defensive alliance when it wasn’t involved in a defensive war, only in criminal aggression, if we use international law classification.
> Why not comparing the number of times NATO states invaded some country, and compare with the number of times Russia invaded some country. The relation would probably be somewhere between 10:1 and 100:1.
Are you actually citing all the wars Russia was involved in since IX century? I don’t even know where to start with this, but maybe consider that “Russia” is not some thousand year old unchanging state, it has been morphing and changing drastically. Even reasoning about USSR and modern Russia as equivalent entities is just plain wrong - different economies, different basis, different system of government, ownership and decision making, vastly different territories even.
So I would stick comparing modern states between each other, not some small feudal entities from IX century
Oh, enablers and provocateurs on the west against the underdog Russia. Cry me a river. I absolutely do not like many aspects of the way how US behaves in this planet. What I do not understand is that how anyone thinks that you get any sympathy by trying to fight US/west by being a failed PoS totalitarian developing country. Make yourself a better country than US, wait a decade or a couple and see how old enemies are joining you.
To become richer (better maybe not the right word to apply to USA, there are many places that are much better) than USA, you have to have the same military might and ability to influence the whole world. This kind of might is directly connected to capital a state controls, and I don’t see anyone outpacing USA any time soon - the cake has been cut long time ago.
> Minsk agreements were basically abandoned from the start and no one enforced them
Why would Ukraine follow Minsk when Russia won't even follow the Budapest Memorandum?.
Russia never follows agreements when it doesn't suit them and only uses them as leverage or as way to freeze conflicts for them to restart in the future.
First Minsk agreements were broken, then there was Minsk II that required Ukraine to do specific changes, like federalisation, to which Ukraine leaders agreed, but never proceeded with.
Budapest Memorandum was broken in 2022, Minsk II was in 2015. And Russia is not a side of Minsk agreements, at least not directly.
I didn’t say that Russia has any just reasons to break any international agreements, because it doesn’t.
However, we’re talking about Minsk II, that looked to me like a good deal for all parties involved, and I think it had the potential to bring peace to these lands first time in 20 years.
In what world is Minsk II a good deal for all parties?. It literally gave Ukraine nothing aside from "we stop killing your soldiers". It did exactly what Russia seeks to do, freeze conflicts so they can start them again.
I don’t think “independent states” applies here, especially right after USSR dissolution. There was a lot of corruption, a lot of capital “redistribution” and outside meddling. They got some feeling of security, but also became a tool of US imperialism and a frontline that supposed to take the first hit/make a first strike.
I would prefer to be in a neutral position.
After over a generation the effects speak for themselves - those who aligned with the west are now democracies(even if at times lead by populists) with healthy economies which were invested into.
Meanwhile those who either aligned with Russia or remained under its influence have very little of the liberty my generation already got used to, rampant corruption and stagnant economies.
Personally I prefer the former, as many citizens of the latter really, but they don't have a say in that due to their circumstances.
As for safety: Ukraine was supposed to remain neutral in exchange for the nuclear stockpile on its territory, but all it got is an unprovoked invasion from Russia, which doesn't respect such agreements and it's enough to neighbor this country to understand this.
Is US handing out passports here in Europe? Are they deporting kids to US, invading countries to make it their own territory? Poisoning politicians that alignn with Russia? Sorry but I haven't seen that. However, we've seen plenty of that coming from Russia.
And you wonder why countries like to join NATO (under agreement, begging them to accept), and not Russia (under force). Strange right?
How's that win-win relationship working out for Ukraine right now?
"The Ukrainian military already is bleeding Russia in the Donbass
region (and vice versa). Providing more U.S. military equipment and
advice could lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it ... Increasing
military advice and arms supplies to Ukraine is the most feasible of these
options with the largest impact, but any such initiative would have to be
calibrated very carefully to avoid a widely expanded conflict."
- 2019 paper from the RAND Corporation titled Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground
Moldova for sure. Baltics or Poland highly likely, and that would mean a direct confrontation with NATO. The nuclear threats now are peanuts compared to what would happen then.
I've assumed reality where there's no "NATO expansionism" (as GP was complaining about US forging alliances), so Poland and entire post-Soviet block wouldn't be in the NATO at all and would be full-time enjoying "Ruski Mir".
Hard to find words to express how shitty that would be.
I think it varies case by case. Sorry, I don’t believe in a equal and just relationship between the biggest economy in the world and economies that are few order of magnitude smaller. As well as I don’t believe in a relationship between 40 years old man and 17 years old girl.
But let’s imagine that this is a win-win relationship, say between Estonia and NATO. I understand that Estonia is getting from them, but what USA is getting?
What did USA gain from joining the allies in Europe during WW1 and WW2? Besides the moral and humanitarian reasons, which I actually believe played a big role even though I'm not American and I know it's easy to be cynical online and disregard those, they also gained a larger market for their products. US hegemony has benefitted the US for decades. Same thing applies now, the more countries that are friendly and politically aligned the better. And NATO isn't just the US, the Baltic airspace is currently being protected by Portugal and Romania.
You claim that the economy of EU+UK is "a few order of magnitude smaller" than US?
USA is getting a strong partnership next to one of its worst enemies.
Let me pose this question: If US would drop out of NATO, would that mean all NATO countries would drop out, or would the rest of NATO still form an alliance?
