So yes, it was very much a factor. EU expansion was also a factor. US-backed coups was also a factor. Add it up, and US influence is all over these events.

But we’re supposed to believe Russia shouldn’t have been worried, that their fears were completely unwarranted, and that NATO was irrelevant — because you say so. — Mikie

Did Russia have a reason to attack Ukraine, when it had a pro-Russian president at the helm and its neutrality confirmed by the pariiament?

I didn’t write anywhere that I want evidences, indeed you can not quote me saying it — neomac

Hmmm...

I’m living and lived in several Western countries, and am pro-West, not specifically pro-Anglo-Saxon World — neomac

.

And my objections weren’t about the evidences — neomac

Ah, if your objections weren't about evidence, why do you reject them all?

I hope you understand that no matter how true these claims are, none of these evidences are sensibly pertinent to answer my question “do you prefer to eat a pizza in an Italian pizzeria or in a Chinese pizzeria?”. — neomac

Again, your arguments against my comments are twisted. I am pretty aware of what you were looking for when you started debating with me. I even answered you more than one time that I would rather live in an Eastern nation than a Western one, and I admitted that an Ukrainian has more right to live in the EU than me, frankly. To argue why I say those things, I provided reliable data along with my comments. Yet, you decided to refuse to accept them. As I said, that's your problem with not accepting that Russia is an important and likeable country, not mine.

On the other hand, the example of Chinese pizzerias is good. Nice try. But you should apply to yourself as well, because you are given as granted that every Western city is more suitable than Russia. I ask you now then: Would you live in Bucharest or Jaén? Don't say that in this part of the globe, life standards are better per se and, because you visited some Western cities, the rest are exactly as you are thinking about.

I do bother because Russia would pay a politician to spread Russian lies not me.
Or are you suggesting me to spread Russian lies for free as you do? — neomac

This is hilarious.

1. Why is a Russian representative necessarily a liar?

2. Again, I am working pro bono to help you to reach out the truth.

I didn’t write anywhere that I want evidences, indeed you can not quote me saying it — neomac


Hmmm...

I’m living and lived in several Western countries, and am pro-West, not specifically pro-Anglo-Saxon World — neomac

.

And my objections weren’t about the evidences — neomac


Ah, if your objections weren't about evidence, why do you reject them all? — javi2541997

I told you: “since you were trying to answer my question by providing some evidences, I limited myself to question their pertinence.”
Now it’s you who seemingly has a hard time to understand the distinction between “pertinence” and “accuracy”, and despite the repeated clarifications.

Again, your arguments against my comments are twisted. I am pretty aware of what you were looking for when you started debating with me. I even answered you more than one time that I would rather live in an Eastern nation than a Western one, and I admitted that an Ukrainian has more right to live in the EU than me, frankly. To argue why I say those things, I provided reliable data along with my comments. Yet, you decided to refuse to accept them. As I said, that's your problem with not accepting that Russia is an important and likeable country, not mine. — javi2541997

No it’s you who is twisting things. I asked you one question and expected a pertinent answer. If I ask you: “what time is it?” and your answer is “In Australia is summer”, your answer however true is not pertinent, no matter how many evidences you bring to support the claim “In Australia is summer”. And it’s not my question that needs to be revised to fit your answer, it’s your answer that needs to be revised to fit my question.

On the other hand, the example of Chinese pizzerias is good. Nice try. But you should apply to yourself as well, because you are given as granted that every Western city is more suitable than Russia. I ask you now then: Would you live in Bucharest or Jaén? Don't say that in this part of the globe, life standards are better per se and, because you visited some Western cities, the rest are exactly as you are thinking about. — javi2541997

That’s false, I didn’t say anywhere nor give for granted that “every Western city is more suitable than Russia” indeed you can not quote me saying it. And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. I simply asked you to compare avg standard of life between Western countries and Russia. At best you can question or ask me why it is relevant to me to assess AVG standards of life by country. But if you intend to sensibly answer my question as it is, then I’m obviously expecting a pertinent answer from you, that’s all. And if you fail to provide a pertinent answer, I’m free to signal it as such.

I do bother because Russia would pay a politician to spread Russian lies not me.
Or are you suggesting me to spread Russian lies for free as you do? — neomac


This is hilarious.

1. Why is a Russian representative necessarily a liar?
2. Again, I am working pro bono to help you to reach out the truth. — javi2541997

1. I didn’t write anywhere “a Russian representative is necessarily a liar”. Again, I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand.
2. It was a sarcastic joke.


Anyways we are going off topic, here. Your misunderstanding of my question is completely marginal to the subject of this thread and seeing you embarrass yourself again is getting boring. If you understood the clarifications I’ve given to you in this post, good for you. If you didn’t, I’ll remember you in my prayers. If I’ll remember to convert before dying, obviously.

Did Russia have a reason to attack Ukraine, when it had a pro-Russian president at the helm and its neutrality confirmed by the pariiament? — Jabberwock

But that’s not what happened. Crimea occurred after the coup, not before and not during. Once it was known that Yanukovych was gone and replaced by a pro-Western leader — yes, they had reason to annex Crimea at that point.

I’m not saying their reasons are “good” reasons or that I agree with them.

But that’s not what happened. Crimea occurred after the coup, not before and not during. Once it was known that Yanukovych was gone and replaced by a pro-Western leader — yes, they had reason to annex Crimea at that point.

I’m not saying their reasons are “good” reasons or that I agree with them. — Mikie

You are evading the question: was Russia threatened by NATO enough to invade when it had a pro-Russian president and legislated Ukraine's neutrality?

No it’s you who is twisting things. I asked you one question and expected a pertinent answer. If I ask you: “what time is it?” and your answer is “In Australia is summer”, your answer however true is not pertinent, no matter how many evidences you bring to support the claim “In Australia is summer”. And it’s not my question that needs to be revised to fit your answer, it’s your answer that needs to be revised to fit my question. — neomac

To be honest, I think you forgot why I showed evidences of why Moscow or Saint Petersburg can be nice cities to live in. Our discussion started because you stated the following premise: The western world is a better place to live in and it is less oppresive. I disagreed, saying that the Western media manipulates us to hate Russia. You didn't believe such a claim, and then I showed you why I sustain those opinions. The metrics I have shared are pretty good, but instead of being honest and accepting that Russia can be likeable too, you started to twist things. Your premises have no sense and you are off topic. Again, Is Russia that bad? Because I already proved why it is not, but I haven't seen any from your side.

And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. — neomac

OK, I say the same regarding my evidences. It is not my business if you don't want to accept them.

I simply asked you to compare avg standard of life between Western countries and Russia. At best you can question or ask me why it is relevant to me to assess AVG standards of life by country — neomac

I don't question your opinion and thoughts because that would be arrogant on my side. I am not anyone to say if comparing the middle-classes of each country is relevant or not. For some reasons, this emerged during our debate, and then I did my best at showing data. If I had questioned the relevance of your inquiry, I would be a lazy person who doesn't know how to address questions.

If you understood the clarifications I’ve given to you in this post, good for you. If you didn’t, I’ll remember you in my prayers. — neomac

:up:

Because I already proved why it is not, but I haven't seen any from your side. — javi2541997

I gave you some evidences for MY assessment:
Dude, it’s not that difficult to fetch stats about Russia on the Internet.
And overall Russia doesn’t stand a chance:
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/civil-liberties-index-eiu
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/unemployment_rate/
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/investing/currencies/top-10-strongest-currencies-in-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://ocindex.net/2021/rankings/?y=2023&f=rankings&view=List
https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/
https://rankedex.com/society-rankings/education-index
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cleanest-countries-in-the-world
https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate
https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php?country=fr
Not to mention the possibility for avg Westerners to move and migrate for economic opportunities more easily within the West.
And I don't care if you do not trust my sources.

And I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. — neomac

OK, I say the same regarding my evidences. — javi2541997

You are attributing to me beliefs, questions and claims that evidently do not correspond to what I wrote:
“Are you looking for evidence and data? OK, I will show you”
“You asked me for evidence and metrics on the Russian middle-class”
“you said that they are not reliable to you”
“you say that you want evidences in how it is to live in Russia”
“you are given as granted that every Western city is more suitable than Russia”
“Why is a Russian representative necessarily a liar?”
I didn't do the same with you.

For some reasons, this emerged during our debate, and then I did my best at showing data. — javi2541997

But your “evidences of why Moscow or Saint Petersburg can be nice cities to live in” is not pertinent to answer the question I asked because I asked about your preference between the AVG standard of life in the whole fucking country of Russia compared to the AVG standard of life in a whole fucking European country, like Spain.

And I don't care if you do not trust my sources. — neomac

Believe or not, I respect your effort. Another thing is my own disbelief in Western propaganda.

But your “evidences of why Moscow or Saint Petersburg can be nice cities to live in” is not pertinent to answer the question I asked because I asked about your preference between the AVG standard of life in whole fucking country of Russia compared to the AVG standard of life in a whole fucking European country, like Spain. — neomac

Preferences depend on someone's tastes, and according to my own aims and purposes, I personally consider Russia as a better place to live in than other countries of the EU. For example, if I had to leave Spain, I would try something in Russia, Japan, Ireland, Scotland, etc. But I do not see myself living in the average famous city: London, Rome or Paris. The hello no! They have a big problem with multiculturalism and insecurity in the streets.
There are other countries inside the EU which can fit my preferences, such as Poland and Hungary. I was in Kraków, and it was fantastic, and I felt good expending my time there.

What I am looking for in my preferences for a good city to live in is two main aspects: security (control on illegal immigration, so the neighbourhoods don't have ghetto problems. Sadly, Madrid - as well as other Western cities - is losing this battle) authenticity (the ambient, urbanism, behaviour, etc. Maintains their roots, and it is not influenced by Western 'activities' such as Mc Donald's or Netflix). According to my tastes, I see Moscow more authentic than London or Los Angeles, for example.

, just a minor clarification that's come up before in the thread (2023Mar23, 2023Mar3, 2023Feb16, 2022Dec31): ↑ that's what Putin wants others to hear. Hence two additional considerations...

Similar to what's come up before (2022Mar13, 2022Jul21, 2022Oct8, 2022Nov9), suppose that Ukraine had ... ▸ declared neutrality with respect to international military alliance memberships, formally on paper / constitutionally (2022Mar8, 2022Mar9, 2022Mar11); ▸ retained right to self-defense, e.g. from invaders (shouldn't be controversial), including foreign training and/or weaponry as the case may be; ▸ explicitly stated that others respect sovereignty, self-determination, freedom to seek own path (shouldn't be controversial); ▸ actively pursued EU membership, and perhaps sought other such cooperation ... Something along those lines. — Sep 26, 2023

As to the former, now suppose that Ukraine had entered a defense agreement with, say, France, the UK, Luxembourg, Australia, South Korea, Japan, whoever, so that Ukraine had a multinational force (+ gear) present, and those countries had Ukrainian forces present. What might we then have expected from the Kremlin? (Say, anything significantly different from what we're seeing today?) — Oct 6, 2023

Prior on those particular considerations, by the way...

The way that you phrased your hypothetical, those other countries would be forming a bloc that would function essentially the same as NATO.
So in that sense it doesn't matter which military bloc or hegemon takes the role of NATO and US respectively, assuming of course there's a credible threat of Russia being kicked out of Ukraine permanently. — Oct 7, 2023

Except it wouldn't. There'd be no NATO expansion involved for example (as linked), but rather a "defense agreement" involving "whoever" (perhaps including China). Okie, so, in this case, we wouldn't expect much difference from the Kremlin from what we're seeing today. (?) — Oct 7, 2023

Anyway, there's been lots of repetition in the thread (including on the (supposed) NATO-phobia). Maybe that's why we're on page 519 or so. Think we can hit 1K? :) (ok, that's a bit cynical)

You are evading the question: was Russia threatened by NATO enough to invade when it had a pro-Russian president and legislated Ukraine's neutrality? — Jabberwock

When Yanukovych was in office, no. When he was thrown out? More so, of course— but still not the main driver.

Still hardly non-existent or irrelevant, as you’ve claimed.

When Yanukovych was in office, no. When he was thrown out? More so, of course— but still not the main driver. — Mikie

Great, so finally we agree that at that period NATO was not seen by Russia as a direct threat. But Yanukovych was ousted due to the course of events initiated by Russians, not by NATO or the US. Russians overplayed their hand, coerced him to abandon the EU trade deal and sparked the protests in the Maidan demanding his ouster. Ukrainians were so outraged meddling that they have chosen a much more direct pro-Western course. Sure, the US has supported it, but it started without the West and rather caught it by surpise. So how exactly is that US/NATO fault?

But Yanukovych was ousted due to the course of events initiated by Russians, not by NATO or the US. Russians overplayed their hand, coerced him to abandon the EU trade deal and sparked the protests in the Maidan demanding his ouster. — Jabberwock

No, he was ousted by an uprising with plenty of social engineering and funding from the US — which had been happening for years, in fact. To the tune of billions of dollars (with a B).

You can blame Russia for this — fine. I don’t care to squabble. I’m happy to blame Russia. But again, if we’re interested in their perspective — in what they consider threats, in reasoning for their actions, etc — it’s good to know the full story. Turns out there’s some truth to it.

In any case, whether it was solely Russia’s fault for the uprising is irrelevant— maybe they did push too far, etc. Doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what we’re discussing here. Yanukovych’s overthrow was not something Russia wanted or liked, and they considered this a time when they could lose Ukraine completely to Western influence— the EU, NATO, etc. So they invaded Crimea. Shouldn’t have been a surprise.

Now it’s true a story has been fabricated since then, about Russian imperialism and Putin’s ambitions and so forth— wanting to take over all the old Soviet territories, etc. But that’s only been the official Western-propagated story since 2014, and ignores a great deal of history. It wasn’t the story in 2008, when they pushed for NATO membership and started the ball rolling with our current situation.

No, he was ousted by an uprising with plenty of social engineering and funding from the US — which had been happening for years, in fact. To the tune of billions of dollars (with a B).

You can blame Russia for this — fine. I don’t care to squabble. I’m happy to blame Russia. But again, if we’re interested in their perspective — in what they consider threats, in reasoning for their actions, etc — it’s good to know the full story. Turns out there’s some truth to it.

In any case, whether it was solely Russia’s fault for the uprising is irrelevant— maybe they did push too far, etc. Doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what we’re discussing here. Yanukovych’s overthrow was not something Russia wanted or liked, and they considered this a time when they could lose Ukraine completely to Western influence— the EU, NATO, etc. So they invaded Crimea. Shouldn’t have been a surprise.

Now it’s true a story has been fabricated since then, about Russian imperialism and Putin’s ambitions and so forth— wanting to take over all the old Soviet territories, etc. But that’s only been the official Western-propagated story since 2014, and ignores a great deal of history. It wasn’t the story in 2008, when they pushed for NATO membership and started the ball rolling with our current situation. — Mikie

Oh, so now it is 'social engineering', because you simply cannot accept the fact that it is Ukrainians themselves that finally want to leave the Russian sphere of influence, just like many other countries in the region. You absolutely do not care what Ukrainians think about that.

And now you are just contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge that Russia's reaction was caused by its refusal to let Ukraine leave its influence and then claim that the imperialism is a 'fabricated story'. But that is one and the same - Russia's imperlalism is exactly the demand to call the shots in its former republics, it is not necessarily about physically annexing the lands. Belarus is the prime example of how that works in practice. You renounce the claim of Russian imperialism without actually understanding what it is. This is evident just from the claim that it is 'Western-propagated'. No, it is not, the most vocal opponents of Russian imperialism are of course Russia's neighbors, who have been telling about it for centuries. It is just that the West has realized what they are talking about after the Crimea invasion.

Oh, so now it is 'social engineering', because you simply cannot accept the fact that it is Ukrainians themselves that finally want to leave the Russian sphere of influence, just like many other countries in the region. You absolutely do not care what Ukrainians think about that. — Jabberwock

I do— but I’ll repeat myself again: what’s relevant isn’t what I think, it’s what the Russians think. Is there any reason for them to be concerned? What do they say? Do they believe Western forces were involved? Do they mention NATO at all (which you claimed they didn’t)? Yes. Now— is there any truth to those claims? Turns out, yes. Turns out the US was funding pro-democracy groups for years.

Now I’m in favor of democracy. I’m in favor of Ukrainians deciding for themselves what to do. But the topic here is also what Russians perceive, because we’re discussing the causes of their aggressions.

The US would love to have us believe they had no hand in any of this— totally blameless. But we should question whether that’s true. We should listen to the Russians, to our own ambassadors, to dissent scholars, etc., and see if it holds any weight. I think it does, especially given the United States’ role as a world power the last 60+ years.

But that is one and the same - Russia's imperlalism is exactly the demand to call the shots in its former republics, — Jabberwock

Alright, so what is US involvement if not imperialism? Diplomacy and good will?

Imperialism was not given as a reason for NATO expansion. But Poland and others already joined— with no invasion, regardless. Ukraine was and is a red line for Russia, as they stated clearly for years. If not wanting NATO on your doorstep is imperialism, so be it. But that’s a stretch, I think. I wouldn’t hear many claiming the US as being imperialist if it annexed Baha in reaction to a Chinese-backed regime change in Mexico. Or that it wished to conquer Mexico and this was the proof.

Russia had and has no intention of conquering Ukraine. The logistics don’t add up, among other reasons. The goal isn’t conquest or re-forming the USSR.

If Russia wanted to “call the shots” in all its former territories, it failed miserably. Having some say in whether a neighbor along your borders —with historical and cultural ties to Russia, especially in the east — joins western military alliances and gets dominated by western interests is a little different.

I’m in favor of Ukrainian freedom. They should put it to a vote and work it out. But let’s not pretend that Russia hadn’t been screaming about this for years, even before 2014 when the polls started to change in favor of NATO.

I don’t like Russia or what Russia is doing. But I’m a US citizen, and I don’t like what we’ve done — and are doing— either.

I do— but I’ll repeat myself again: what’s relevant isn’t what I think, it’s what the Russians think. Is there any reason for them to be concerned? What do they say? Do they believe Western forces were involved? Do they mention NATO at all (which you claimed they didn’t)? Yes. Now— is there any truth to those claims? Turns out, yes. Turns out the US was funding pro-democracy groups for years.

Now I’m in favor of democracy. I’m in favor of Ukrainians deciding for themselves what to do. But the topic here is also what Russians perceive, because we’re discussing the causes of their aggressions.

The US would love to have us believe they had no hand in any of this— totally blameless. But we should question whether that’s true. We should listen to the Russians, to our own ambassadors, to dissent scholars, etc., and see if it holds any weight. I think it does, especially given the United States’ role as a world power the last 60+ years. — Mikie

The difference is that if Russians oppose the Ukrainian independence in general, then the conflict would likely arise sooner or later anyway, as Ukrainians became more and more uncomfortable in the Russian mir. Not to mention that a threat toward one's country can be seen as a legitimate reason for an armed conflict. Desire to keep a neighboring sovereign country undemocratic - not so much.

Imperialism was not given as a reason for NATO expansion. But Poland and others already joined— with no invasion, regardless. Ukraine was and is a red line for Russia, as they stated clearly for years. If not wanting NATO on your doorstep is imperialism, so be it. But that’s a stretch, I think. I wouldn’t hear many claiming the US as being imperialist if it annexed Baha in reaction to a Chinese-backed regime change in Mexico. — Mikie

Poland and other countries have joined specifically because they considered Russia as a potential threat. And having NATO in the Baltics or Finland is exactly having it on one's doorstep. Ukraine is different for other reasons.

Russia had and has no intention of conquering Ukraine. The logistics don’t add up, among other reasons. The goal us conquest or re-forming the USSR.

If Russia wanted to “call the shots” in all its former territories, it failed miserably. Having some say in whether a neighbor along your borders —with historical and cultural ties to Russia, especially in the east — joins western military alliances and gets dominated by western interests is a little different. — Mikie

And again, you do not understand the Russian imperialism, if you believe it must 'conquer' anything. I have given you already an example of Belarus, has it been conquered? If you are unfamiliar with the situation there, have the countries of the Warsaw Pact been 'conquered' during the time of the USSR? No, they were supposedly 'liberated', which does not change the fact that they were victims of the Russian imperialism. Only at that time the West preferred to look the other way.

Yes, Russia has lost its grip over the former republics after the fall of the USSR, but that is the exact problem: it wants it back. That is the root problem of conflicts of which Ukraine is only the biggest one.

I’m in favor of Ukrainian freedom. They should put it to a vote and work it out. But let’s not pretend that Russia hadn’t been screaming about this for years, even before 2014 when the polls started to change. — Mikie

But that is exactly what they did. That is why the conflict has much less to do with the Western machinations and much more with the Ukraine's desire to reorient itself. As I wrote here before, Ukrainians stood before a choice between being like the Baltics and being like Belarus. It is not surprising that they chose what they did.

Yes, Russia has lost its grip over the former republics after the fall of the USSR, but that is the exact problem: it wants it back. That is the root problem of conflicts of which Ukraine is only the biggest one. — Jabberwock

Okay— this is an important difference. I don’t buy this.

You said a second before that imperialism isn’t restricted to conquering a region — fine. Now you fall back on the position that Russia does want to take over former republics. Not sure what “wants it back” would mean otherwise.

Okay— this is an important difference. I don’t buy this.

You said a second before that imperialism isn’t restricted to conquering a region — fine. Now you fall back on the position that Russia does want to take over former republics. Not sure what “wants it back” would mean otherwise. — Mikie

Maybe I was not clear - when I wrote Russia 'wants it back' I meant the control, not the physical territories. In fact, in many ways it is more convenient for Russia to control them from the back - when the protests erupted in Belarus, they turned their anger toward Lukashenka, not Putin (even though Russians had significant part in suppressing them). If the protests succeeded, Lukashenka would bear the consequences. The Warsaw Pact worked similar in many aspects.

Maybe I was not clear — Jabberwock

You were clear. Abundantly.

Alright, so by your definition we have two countries with competing geopolitical goals, and thus two “imperial” powers. If that is indeed what is meant, than the US is winning, by far, and from the Russian point of view is quite threatening.

Your claim is that Russia should have no control over Ukraine, a significant piece of the overall power game. I mostly agree — it should be the people who decide. On the other hand, do you also agree the US should exercise no control? That they shouldn’t have pushed for NATO membership in 2008, for example, when the polls showed the people did not want to join it and Russia was posing no threat? Was Russia supposed to just sit back and watch, no matter what happens? Would the US be expected to do so in similar circumstances?

Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.

Alright, so by your definition we have two countries with competing geopolitical goals, and thus two “imperial” powers. If that is indeed what is meant, than the US is winning, by far, and from the Russian point of view is quite threatening.

Your claim is that Russia should have no control over Ukraine, a significant piece of the overall power game. I mostly agree — it should be the people who decide. On the other hand, do you also agree the US should exercise no control? That they shouldn’t have pushed for NATO membership in 2008, for example, when the polls showed the people did not want to join it and Russia was posing no threat? Was Russia supposed to just sit back and watch, no matter what happens? Would the US be expected to do so in similar circumstances?

Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it. — Mikie

Not exactly, the two are not even simliar. While the US did many things which should be condemned (like the war in Iraq), the influence it has in its allied countries is incomparable to what Russia is doing or tries to do. Saying that the US controls, say, Poland or Lithuania in the same way like Russia controls Belarus is simply absurd, the simple difference being that in Poland and the Baltics people can just vote out their governments. Lack of or significant deficit of democracy is necessary for Russia to exert control.

And I still do not understand what exactly do you mean by 'pushing for NATO membership' in 2008. Reading you one might think that Ukraine was being dragged into NATO by force... As we have already discussed, Ukraine had plans to join NATO long before that, with signing the Action Plan and official Kuchma's declaration in 2002. After the Orange Revolution Yushchenko confirmed those aspirations (here is his speech from 2005). In 2008 Ukraine and Georgia hoped to enter the Membership Action Plan, which the US supported, but Germany and France blocked, so Ukraine and Georgia were rebuffed (so much for the US hegemony!). So in fact, in 2008 Ukraine got less than its government wanted and expected - instead of the specific measures they only got vague promises. Comparing the accession paths of other countries, I would say for Ukraine in 2008 the accession process has been actually slowed down, not accelerated.

And yes, since 2002 (when the number of supporters and opponents was about equal) the policy of joining NATO lost popularity in Ukraine (unlike joining the EU), which was one of the reasons why it was scrapped when Yanukovych was elected. Still, until that time it was the official policy of Ukraine.

Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
— Mikie

Not exactly, the two are not even simliar. — Jabberwock

Exactly. One is the good guy, one isn’t. And that’s the fundamental upstream issue by which you interpret everything else.

Saying that the US controls, say, Poland or Lithuania in the same way like Russia controls Belarus is simply absurd — Jabberwock

Except I never once said that. The US actions in central and South America are certainly comparable — if not far worse. To say nothing of the atrocities in the Middle East, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, etc. If you want to be serious about “imperial aggression,” comparing the US and Russia is indeed absurd — the US is far worse.

signing the Action Plan and official Kuchma's declaration in 2002. — Jabberwock

The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify clearly Ukraine’s strategic objectives and priorities in pursuit of its aspirations towards full integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and to provide a strategic framework for existing and future NATO-Ukraine cooperation under the Charter. In this context it will be periodically reviewed.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm

Kuchma’s declaration was an attempt to gain favor with NATO. But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership. It had its own problems at the time, and knew very well that this would provoke Russia. There was no official US push until 2008. And it’s US involvement that Russia reacted against, and what’s relevant.

Exactly. One is the good guy, one isn’t. And that’s the fundamental upstream issue by which you interpret everything else. — Mikie

It is not a matter of my interpretation. Belarussians are dying and are jailed to get out from the rule of 'one guy' and do not mind the other one. People in those countries in the Eastern Europe who did join the West are quite happy about, it is about the single issue they agree on. And their distrust of Russia remained high even when they have already did. They freely vote and choose those politicians who maintain that course. It is those who remain under Russian rule who must be suppressed, that is why all the colored revolutions happened.

Except I never once said that. The US actions in central and South America are certainly comparable — if not far worse. To say nothing of the atrocities in the Middle East, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, etc. If you want to be serious about “imperial aggression,” comparing the US and Russia is indeed absurd — the US is far worse. — Mikie

I will not argue about that, the very simple fact is that in the region we talk about leaving Russia and joining the West has significantly improved the lives of those people, in their own opinion. Ukrainians, Georgians and others were witness to that and wanted to join them. So no, as far as the Eastern Europe is concerned, there is no comparison.

Kuchma’s declaration was an attempt to gain favor with NATO. But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership. It had its own problems at the time, and knew very well that this would provoke Russia. There was no official US push until 2008. And it’s US involvement that Russia reacted against, and what’s relevant. — Mikie

'Gain favor with NATO'? Which part of the 'its aspirations towards full integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures' is not clear to you?

Also, can you provide any evidence that the US did not treat Ukraine's membership 'seriously'?

The United States supports Ukraine's NATO aspirations and is prepared to help Ukraine achieve its goals by providing assistance with challenging reforms. The United States supports an offer of an Intensified Dialogue on membership issues with Ukraine at the meeting of Alliance Foreign Ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania later this month. — Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Viktor Yushchenko

Was that a joke?

Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006

Is he joking or is he pushing?

The United States is actively engaged at NATO to help Ukraine achieve its NATO goals, including, I should note, support for the Membership Action Plan that Ukraine is interested in. — David Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs June 22, 2006

Is he serious?

Ukraine officially started its path toward NATO membership in 2002 and followed more or less the same path as other countries joining NATO before it - for Poland it took eight years from the Rome summit. Ukraine (and Georgia) gradually fulfilled the required criteria concerning the army size, structure, etc. Saying that the preparations for Ukraine's joining were 'not serious' simply ignores the historical record. What is worse, it even ignores our previous discussion, which started with the Putin's quote - at the time he was not that concerned with the expansion, but there is no indication he does not treat it 'seriously'.

In 2008 the next expected step for Ukraine, Georgia an Croatia was entering the MAP - Ukraine asked for this in January. It was denied that mostly due to opposition from Germany and France, the U.S. tried to convince them, but obviously failed. So you are saying Russians suddenly turned from a peaceful nation to a belligerent one because Bush has tried to convince Europeans of basically sticking to the plan established in 2002, even though he failed miserably? That makes no sense at all.

Ukrainians, Georgians and others were witness to that and wanted to join them. — Jabberwock

Yet the polling indicated the opposite, and had for years, up to and including 2008. So what Ukrainians are you talking about? Not the people.

I will not argue about that — Jabberwock

Good. So just know that the US has a hand in this as well, for decades. This wasn't an accident, and it was done with the full knowledge that it would provoke Russia. That was a mistake. It also wasn't being pushed by the people of Ukraine at that time.

The reason for NATO expansion is obvious. It's part of an overall strategy for Eastern Europe, mostly to do with, ultimately, money. To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable. So the question is: was it worth it, knowing full well that it would eventually provoke a response -- as our own ambassador had warned about? I don't think so.

Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it.
— President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006

Is he joking or is he pushing? — Jabberwock

And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.

Saying that the preparations for Ukraine's joining were 'not serious' simply ignores the historical record. — Jabberwock

It's the US position I was talking about. Prior to Bucharest, there were only the vague statements you provided -- "Someday." That day became much more real, to Russia, in 2008.

So you are saying Russians suddenly turned from a peaceful nation to a belligerent one — Jabberwock

No -- their position was quite clear, for years, concerning Ukraine membership in NATO.

Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.

Yet the polling indicated the opposite, and had for years, up to and including 2008. So what Ukrainians are you talking about? Not the people. — Mikie

The support for joining NATO was about equal in 2002 and decreased from then (as the Russian opposition increased), but the support for closer ties with the EU was much higher, starting with 60% in 2000. So yes, the people.

Good. So just know that the US has a hand in this as well, for decades. This wasn't an accident, and it was done with the full knowledge that it would provoke Russia. That was a mistake. It also wasn't being pushed by the people of Ukraine at that time.

The reason for NATO expansion is obvious. It's part of an overall strategy for Eastern Europe, mostly to do with, ultimately, money. To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable. So the question is: was it worth it, knowing full well that it would eventually provoke a response -- as our own ambassador had warned about? I don't think so. — Mikie

It is becoming frustrating that you simply ignore all the sources I provide, because you know better. Kuchma has pushed for NATO membership and so did Yushchenko. Their declarations are quite clear and numerous. Ukraine was on the path to joining NATO since 2002, which Putin himself has acknowledged. Sure, US supported it more than some other countries, but so what? NATO is an organization, the US is influential there, but you are clearly overestimating its power, as the Bucharest summit shows - the US did not get what they wanted.

And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest. — Mikie

Yes, both Kuchma and Yushchenko did choose it, they have adopted the Action Plan in 2002 and acted accordingly. Ukraine made all the necessary steps required for membership, closely cooperated within the NATO-Ukraine Commission, the only snag was the disagreement between Yushchenko and Yanukovych in 2006, but then they got back on track. In Bucharest Ukraine actually got less than it expected, so you are completely wrong about that and documents show it.

In view of Ukraine’s foreign policy orientation towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration, INCLUDING ITS STATED LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP, Ukraine will continue to develop legislation based on universal principles of democracy and international law. — NATO-Ukraine Action Plan

That is the exact statement from 2002 from the site of NATO. Again, which part of LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP is that hard to understand that I have to repeat it over and over?

It's the US position I was talking about. Prior to Bucharest, there were only the vague statements you provided -- "Someday." That day became much more real, to Russia, in 2008. — Mikie

No, that is laughably false. Exactly the opposite has happened.

At a meeting in Vilnius on 21 April (2005), NATO invited Ukraine to begin an ‘Intensified Dialogue’ on Ukraine’s ASPIRATIONS TO MEMBERSHIP and relevant reforms, without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision. — NATO launches ‘Intensified Dialogue’ with Ukraine

NATO has invited Ukraine. Got it? To discuss in detail its aspirations to membership. Got it? In 2005. That is a year which came BEFORE 2008. Is that clear enough?

As to the US position prior to Bucharest:

Congress [...] endorses the vision of further enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, and urges our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to work with the United States to realize a role for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in promoting global security, including continued support for enlargement to include qualified candidate states, specifically by entering into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and recognizing the progress toward meeting the responsibilities and obligations of NATO membership by Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and UKRAINE. — NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007

Is the act of the US Congress serious enough for you?

I see you have carefully omitted the part where I ask you for evidence that the US did not treat the Ukraine's membership seriously before 2008. Is that because you are unable to do it? Can you give ANY evidence that the US position has somehow changed in 2008? Because I can give you a ton of other quotes that show it has basically remained the same for decades.

No -- their position was quite clear, for years, concerning Ukraine membership in NATO.

Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on. — Mikie

I have already given you the quote from Putin where he says it will not particularly influence the relations with Ukraine. Have you already forgotten it?

And it is your claim that the US supposedly did something in 2008 that caused Russian reaction. It seems you are completely unable to support it. In fact, you are so far unable to articulate what it exactly was.

To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable — Mikie

What gives you that idea?

The support for joining NATO was about equal in 2002 and decreased from then (as the Russian opposition increased)[…]So yes, the people. — Jabberwock

Hardly. But nice that you change it up to the EU when convenient.

Sure, US supported it more than some other countries, but so what? NATO is an organization, the US is influential there, but you are clearly overestimating its power, — Jabberwock

And I think you’re underestimating it.

As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — Jabberwock

And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.
— Mikie

Yes, both Kuchma and Yushchenko did choose it — Jabberwock

I was very clearly responding to the above quotation you provided, where Bush said NATO membership was open to the “Ukrainian people if they choose it.” As already has been established, the people didn’t choose anything of the sort.

which part of LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP is that hard to understand that I have to repeat it over and over? — Jabberwock

Which part of “someday” statements is hard to understand? If you can’t tell the difference, from Russia’s point of view, then you’re not paying attention. Bucharest was much more threatening, and that was obvious at the time.

Can you give ANY evidence that the US position has somehow changed in 2008? Because I can give you a ton of other quotes that show it has basically remained the same for decades. — Jabberwock

Yes, Bucharest was different from the Russian point of view. Why? Because it was made unambiguous and immediate: “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

Your inability to see why Russia would consider this threatening is in keeping with your general dismissal of their concerns, since you’ve convinced yourself that it’s mostly nonsense. But that prevents you from seeing what our own ambassador saw:

In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

[…]

Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

And what Putin said at Bucharest:

if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7

Which is a pity. But apparently, you can see into the soul of Putin, and can legitimately disregard these statements because Russia is a bad imperial power, and the US a good one— which supposedly had little influence in all this.

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.

Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
— Mikie

I have already given you the quote from Putin where he says it will not particularly influence the relations with Ukraine. Have you already forgotten it? — Jabberwock

The one quotation, which is questionable, also contains the opposite sentiment. But in any case, it was stated long before 2008. Notice what I said: “at the time.” Do you not accept that at that time— 2008 at Bucharest—Russia was very clear about its position on Ukraine joining NATO? Burns seemed to think so— and I’ll go with his expertise, and Putin’s statements at the time (along with others), over ONE questionable, contradictory statement from 6 years prior. That you pin your hopes on that, and totally avoid 2008, is just avoidance.

According to Ukrainian intelligence...

[...] we clearly know that captured weapons from Ukraine were still transferred by the Russians to the Hamas group. It is mostly infantry weapons.
There is some information that something was going to Hezbollah, but we don't know for sure at this point.
Everyone could see the video on social networks - a completely, let's say, natural for our region and completely unnatural for the Middle East tactic, when FPV drones were used against armored vehicles.
This is the know-how of our war after all. No one other than people who passed through our theater of war could do such a thing. Since we were not there, it means that it was the Russians.
Two more interesting facts. First: a little more than a week before the start of these actions, the Russian station "Sputnik" began to officially speak in Arabic on the territory of Lebanon. This is broadcast in an absolutely propagandist style with clear Russian narratives.
Second: on September 24, a Russian spacecraft capable of conducting radio-electronic reconnaissance and intercepting satellite signals was moved to Israel's geostationary orbit.
Let me remind you that in the period from September 22 to 24, there was an official visit of the Russian military delegation to Iran. We know that there were several, shall we say, wishes from the Iranian side. One of them concerned the expansion of intelligence capabilities.
It is now clear what intelligence information the Russians began to provide to all interested parties. I emphasize that it is not Iran alone, but all interested parties. — Kyrylo Budanov · Roman Kravets, Nazariy Mazilyuk · Ukrainian Pravda · Oct 12, 2023

Well, it doesn't seem likely that Ukraine would send weapons away.


The Sky Shield move is a (by)product of, or reaction to, the Russia → Ukraine warring...

Germany, nine other nations push ahead with joint air defence procurement
^{— Sabine Siebold, Bart Meijer, Rod Nickel · Reuters · Oct 11, 2023}

After the Cold War, many NATO allies scaled down the number of air defence units to reflect their assessment that they faced only a limited missile threat, from countries such as Iran.

19 European countries are in on it at the moment. Defence-oriented only. Concerned with Russia. The Kremlin likely doesn't care much. It does look like the Kremlin is taking or forcing a path to a Cold War II, with some Hot spots, except they've learned from how the last one ended. With a powerful authoritarian Cold War expert at the helm ... appeasement and encouragement (+ proliferation of the authoritarianism) then go hand-in-hand, (re)armament (like Sky Shield) and division and the requisite flaming rhetoric/propaganda/threats go hand-in-hand ...

Well, it doesn't seem likely that Ukraine would send weapons away. — jorndoe

Do you mean our weapons which were given to them for fighting against Russia?

It does look like the Kremlin is taking or forcing a path to a Cold War II, with some Hot spots, except they've learned from how the last one ended. — jorndoe

Oh, yes, that's a given! Russia is the only country which wants to polarise the world. But hey, Israel - backed up by the US and EU - has the right to occupy Gaza and kill thousands of citizens, including children. I think you guys need to be more pragmatic. The Kremlin is not that bad and the White House is not that good.

And what Putin said at Bucharest:

if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7 — Mikie

LOL. Let's enjoy Putin's "opposite sentiment" (apparently all that must matter to the universe, especially to prove that the US is the Great Satan beyond any reasonable doubt, and let's call it - as it deserves - "pure logic"):


“This compromise, which was eventually adopted by all member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, did not suit Georgia, Ukraine, or Russia. Saakashvili was indignant. But even more indignant was Vladimir Putin, who arrived in Bucharest on the last day of the summit, when the decision not to extend the MAP had already been made. All the same, he was furious that NATO was still keeping Georgia and Ukraine hanging on by approving the prospect of future membership.
According to witnesses, at a meeting behind closed doors Putin flew into a rage on the topic of Ukraine. “Ukraine is not even a country,” he told Bush. “Part of it lies in Eastern Europe, and the other, more significant part was given by us as a gift!” He finished his short speech with these words: “If Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.”
Few paid attention to Putin’s warning, since all were focused on the smoldering tensions between Moscow and Tbilisi. The idea of conflict breaking out between Russia and Ukraine seemed preposterous. Besides, Putin only had a month left in his term. The inauguration of the new president, Dmitry Medvedev, was scheduled for May 7”.

Source: "All the Kremlin's Men" by Mikhail Zygar

Hardly. But nice that you change it up to the EU when convenient. — Mikie

No, I do not 'change it up', I consider both, so do Ukrainians and obviously so do Russians. It is your problem that you are fixated on the NATO issue and you see nothing else.

And I think you’re underestimating it. — Mikie

You claim that the US very much wanted for Ukraine to join NATO in 2008, Ukraine still is not in NATO. That is not evidence of very strong influence, if you ask me.

I was very clearly responding to the above quotation you provided, where Bush said NATO membership was open to the “Ukrainian people if they choose it.” As already has been established, the people didn’t choose anything of the sort. — Mikie

That is desperate clutching at straws. The US support for Ukraine in NATO was unwavering at least since 2001, as evidenced by plenty of documents, and you still have provided NO EVIDENCE that it was otherwise.

Which part of “someday” statements is hard to understand? If you can’t tell the difference, from Russia’s point of view, then you’re not paying attention. Bucharest was much more threatening, and that was obvious at the time. — Mikie

The declaration from 2002 is worded almost exactly the same as the one from 2008. And there is a lot of documents in between that show increased cooperation and working toward Ukraine's membership, including those I have already quoted. If that is not enough, there are plenty of records of the workings of the NATO-Ukraine Commission between 2002-2005 that show this. And it is you who is not paying attention, because I have already given you plenty of evidence that the Russian stance has changed BEFORE 2008. So your claim that 'Bucharest was much more threatening' is pure assertion, not based on any evidence. You have just entered the discussion with such belief and no amount of evidence is going to change it.

Yes, Bucharest was different from the Russian point of view. Why? Because it was made unambiguous and immediate: “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” — Mikie

Which was exactly the same as all the declarations which have been made since 2002, as a heap of documents from NATO itself attests. There is a string of well documented declarations and actions from 2002 to 2008 which clearly shows that the preparations for the accession were ongoging, with a slowdown in 2006 due to arising disputes among Ukrainians themselves. Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession. Instead it was specifically denied that, due to protests from Germany and France, and was only told it will become a member, with no specific deadline. 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.

Which is a pity. But apparently, you can see into the soul of Putin, and can legitimately disregard these statements because Russia is a bad imperial power, and the US a good one— which supposedly had little influence in all this. — Mikie

No, I cannot see into soul of anyone and do not even attempt to, you do. I give you direct quote from Putin, yet you insist he thought then something else. I try to base my knowledge on the available documents, which you simply ignore, because you simply know better.

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. Ukraine has decided to join NATO in 2002 as shown in the documents, with lukewarm reaction from Putin at that time, and followed that process, as shown in the documents. 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. Given that you say the US is not interested in democratization and betterment of the Ukrainian people, at that moment, the US have failed miserably in its plans.

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, which spectacularly backfired.

The one quotation, which is questionable, also contains the opposite sentiment. But in any case, it was stated long before 2008. Notice what I said: “at the time.” Do you not accept that at that time— 2008 at Bucharest—Russia was very clear about its position on Ukraine joining NATO? Burns seemed to think so— and I’ll go with his expertise, and Putin’s statements at the time (along with others), over ONE questionable, contradictory statement from 6 years prior. That you pin your hopes on that, and totally avoid 2008, is just avoidance. — Mikie

But I have already acknowledged that Russia strongly opposed Ukraine's NATO membership and have given evidence that it has started after 2002 but before 2008, around 2004-2005. 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 and for which I have given plenty of counterevidence), so you just ignore it, as usual.