It’s not hindsightish. Experts have been warning that NATO actions would ultimately lead to a conflict for decades now. Even Joe Biden famously said this would be the likely outcome of NATO expansion back in 1997. People keep acting as if this is some unprovoked aggression that came out of the blue and that nobody could have predicted.
Germany could have vetoed this two weeks ago. All they had to do was to say that they block Ukraine joining NATO. That’s all it would’ve taken to aver the war. And of course it’s important to note that every NATO country acknowledged that Ukraine would never be realistically admitted to NATO. Yet, the NATO bloc continued refusing of making a legally binding statement to that effect.
The west led Ukraine up the garden path intentionally encouraging false expectations on the part of Ukraine and then Ukraine was discarded like a used pawn once Russia invaded. Now, the west continues to fan the flames of war which Ukraine has no hope of winning prolonging the misery and suffering.
Germany could have vetoed this two weeks ago. All they had to do was …
Thanks Captain Hindsight.
But I doubt Germany could have done anything at this point anyway. Putin wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government, and his demands to NATO before the invasion were probably just an attempt to get NATO further away from Ukraine to have an easier time invading it. At worst for Putin NATO would ignore the demands (which they did) and give him another alleged reason to invade. Remember they say they’re only there to “denazify” and demilitarize Ukraine, and it’s totally not a war. If Putin really felt forced by NATO to invade, he would probably just be honest about it. But he would invade either way, because you don’t just accidentally build up thousands of troops along a border with a country where you’ve wreaked havoc for the past eight years, and then blame Germany when all of NATO didn’t bend over to your demands mere days before you invade.
It’s not hindsight when the experts have been warning you that this will happen for many decades.
But I doubt Germany could have done anything at this point anyway. Putin wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government, and his demands to NATO before the invasion were probably just an attempt to get NATO further away from Ukraine to have an easier time invading it.
Russia literally spent 8 years trying to get meaningful security guarantees from NATO, and it was stonewalled. Stop trying to rewrite history.
But he would invade either way, because you don’t just accidentally build up thousands of troops along a border with a country where you’ve wreaked havoc for the past eight years, and then blame Germany when all of NATO didn’t bend over to your demands mere days before you invade.
Russia literally spent 8 years trying to get meaningful security guarantees from NATO, and it was stonewalled. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Do you know why NATO troops are deployed at their eastern borders (“enhanced forward presence”)? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war. Of course Ukraine wants to be in NATO when their neighbor does stuff like that. Russia brought this to themselves. And with that they’re trying to play the victim in this story. They want security guarantees? How about they guarantee the security of their neighbor first and get out of there, then there might be a chance to talk
Why is the second statement absurd? Okay I overdid it a little, but placing tens of thousands of troops at a border for months is a huge logistical undertaking and certainly not something someone would do just like that. I don’t know a reason to do this other than to invade a neighbor
Do you know why NATO troops are deployed at their eastern borders (“enhanced forward presence”)? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war.
That’s some impressive historical revisionism there. Last I checked NATO overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine and replaced it with a right wing regime. This is what triggered Russia to annex Crimea and Donbas to seek independence. That’s well documented history by the way:
They want security guarantees? How about they guarantee the security of their neighbor first and get out of there, then there might be a chance to talk
Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing until NATO overthrew their government. How about NATO not going around starting color revolutions and invading countries for the past 30 years?
Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justifiable, however it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
NATO overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine and replaced it with a right wing regime
NATO? You think Euromaidan is a creation of NATO? If anything you might mean the US here. Right wing regime? Yeah there were right wing groups involved, but they didn’t exactly make it into the government. Poroshenko wasn’t good either, but he was democratically elected and certainly not worse than Janukowytsch. I can’t attest to the validity of those elections though, I wasn’t there. Also Zelenskyy is of jewish heritage and no far right party gained a seat in the 2019 government, you can hardly call that a right wing regime.
Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing
You’re aware Janukowytsch was basically Putins puppet right? That’s not Ukraine doing its own thing. I’m still convinced Putin enabled this whole mess in eastern Ukraine because he lost his puppet and wants to bring it back. If Ukraine joined NATO, that would become impossible. This is why Putin is so scared of NATO
Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justifiable, however it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened.
Agreed
The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO
Disagreed. I believe if NATO didn’t expand to the east (those countries joined voluntarily by the way), Russia would have caused much more chaos there in the past 30 years. Or maybe it could have worked out better, we will never know since it didn’t happen.
plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this
It’s easy to find people who predicted the future when it’s already in the past. But in the present things are not as obvious
Literally linked you sources, and yes Euromaidan is very much a NATO project with US being in the driver seat of the whole organization. These groups very much did make it into both the government and the military.
Arguing that Zelensky is of jewish heritage is like saying US doesn’t have a problem with racism because Obama is black. Also, wait till you find out about Israel.
You’re aware Janukowytsch was basically Putins puppet right
That’s a pretty big claim. I don’t see how he was Putin’s puppet any more than Scholtz is Biden’s puppet.
Disagreed
All the experts on the subject matter disagree with you, but I’m sure you know best.
It’s easy to find people who predicted the future when it’s already in the past. But in the present things are not as obvious
People have predicted this since 1997, I’ve literally linked you examples of that. At least read the comment you’re replying to.
Russia has been pretty clear regarding what their demands were, and those demands haven’t changed now. They want Ukraine to be a neutral country. The fact of the matter is that NATO could’ve negotiated with Russia in good faith, but instead it chose not to. Now you’re dismissing the whole idea of diplomacy claiming that it’s not even worth considering.
If you accept that the demands haven’t changed, then you understand that if these demands were met prior to the invasion then there wouldn’t be an invasion?
Once again, my point was that the west did not engage in diplomacy with Russia and did not make any attempts to address their concerns. If you don’t understand why it’s desirable to try and resolve problems before they escalate into an open conflict, I really don’t know what else to tell you. Painting Russia as being implacable and claiming that any negotiations would be pointless is a self fulfilling prophecy.
It’s not hindsightish. Experts have been warning that NATO actions would ultimately lead to a conflict for decades now. Even Joe Biden famously said this would be the likely outcome of NATO expansion back in 1997. People keep acting as if this is some unprovoked aggression that came out of the blue and that nobody could have predicted.
Germany could have vetoed this two weeks ago. All they had to do was to say that they block Ukraine joining NATO. That’s all it would’ve taken to aver the war. And of course it’s important to note that every NATO country acknowledged that Ukraine would never be realistically admitted to NATO. Yet, the NATO bloc continued refusing of making a legally binding statement to that effect.
The west led Ukraine up the garden path intentionally encouraging false expectations on the part of Ukraine and then Ukraine was discarded like a used pawn once Russia invaded. Now, the west continues to fan the flames of war which Ukraine has no hope of winning prolonging the misery and suffering.
Thanks Captain Hindsight.
But I doubt Germany could have done anything at this point anyway. Putin wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government, and his demands to NATO before the invasion were probably just an attempt to get NATO further away from Ukraine to have an easier time invading it. At worst for Putin NATO would ignore the demands (which they did) and give him another alleged reason to invade. Remember they say they’re only there to “denazify” and demilitarize Ukraine, and it’s totally not a war. If Putin really felt forced by NATO to invade, he would probably just be honest about it. But he would invade either way, because you don’t just accidentally build up thousands of troops along a border with a country where you’ve wreaked havoc for the past eight years, and then blame Germany when all of NATO didn’t bend over to your demands mere days before you invade.
It’s not hindsight when the experts have been warning you that this will happen for many decades.
Russia literally spent 8 years trying to get meaningful security guarantees from NATO, and it was stonewalled. Stop trying to rewrite history.
This is a profoundly absurd statement.
Do you know why NATO troops are deployed at their eastern borders (“enhanced forward presence”)? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war. Of course Ukraine wants to be in NATO when their neighbor does stuff like that. Russia brought this to themselves. And with that they’re trying to play the victim in this story. They want security guarantees? How about they guarantee the security of their neighbor first and get out of there, then there might be a chance to talk
Why is the second statement absurd? Okay I overdid it a little, but placing tens of thousands of troops at a border for months is a huge logistical undertaking and certainly not something someone would do just like that. I don’t know a reason to do this other than to invade a neighbor
That’s some impressive historical revisionism there. Last I checked NATO overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine and replaced it with a right wing regime. This is what triggered Russia to annex Crimea and Donbas to seek independence. That’s well documented history by the way:
Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing until NATO overthrew their government. How about NATO not going around starting color revolutions and invading countries for the past 30 years?
Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justifiable, however it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
NATO? You think Euromaidan is a creation of NATO? If anything you might mean the US here. Right wing regime? Yeah there were right wing groups involved, but they didn’t exactly make it into the government. Poroshenko wasn’t good either, but he was democratically elected and certainly not worse than Janukowytsch. I can’t attest to the validity of those elections though, I wasn’t there. Also Zelenskyy is of jewish heritage and no far right party gained a seat in the 2019 government, you can hardly call that a right wing regime.
You’re aware Janukowytsch was basically Putins puppet right? That’s not Ukraine doing its own thing. I’m still convinced Putin enabled this whole mess in eastern Ukraine because he lost his puppet and wants to bring it back. If Ukraine joined NATO, that would become impossible. This is why Putin is so scared of NATO
Agreed
Disagreed. I believe if NATO didn’t expand to the east (those countries joined voluntarily by the way), Russia would have caused much more chaos there in the past 30 years. Or maybe it could have worked out better, we will never know since it didn’t happen.
It’s easy to find people who predicted the future when it’s already in the past. But in the present things are not as obvious
That’s it from me
Literally linked you sources, and yes Euromaidan is very much a NATO project with US being in the driver seat of the whole organization. These groups very much did make it into both the government and the military.
Arguing that Zelensky is of jewish heritage is like saying US doesn’t have a problem with racism because Obama is black. Also, wait till you find out about Israel.
That’s a pretty big claim. I don’t see how he was Putin’s puppet any more than Scholtz is Biden’s puppet.
All the experts on the subject matter disagree with you, but I’m sure you know best.
People have predicted this since 1997, I’ve literally linked you examples of that. At least read the comment you’re replying to.
deleted by creator
Russia has been pretty clear regarding what their demands were, and those demands haven’t changed now. They want Ukraine to be a neutral country. The fact of the matter is that NATO could’ve negotiated with Russia in good faith, but instead it chose not to. Now you’re dismissing the whole idea of diplomacy claiming that it’s not even worth considering.
deleted by creator
Russian demands haven’t changed from two weeks ago.
deleted by creator
If you accept that the demands haven’t changed, then you understand that if these demands were met prior to the invasion then there wouldn’t be an invasion?
deleted by creator
Once again, my point was that the west did not engage in diplomacy with Russia and did not make any attempts to address their concerns. If you don’t understand why it’s desirable to try and resolve problems before they escalate into an open conflict, I really don’t know what else to tell you. Painting Russia as being implacable and claiming that any negotiations would be pointless is a self fulfilling prophecy.