[loourr]

I feel that these articles rarely give any perspective on Russia's issue which is that Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements and would result in armaments being placed at their boarder which they view as a risk and security breach. The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections and then pretending Russia threatening military action is unilateral hostility.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements

This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836

[remarkEon]

Calling it a "myth" misses the forest for the trees.

What possible benefit to existing NATO members does Ukraine joining serve? I can't think of any, unless you define "benefit" as "intentionally antagonizing the former Cold War adversary".

From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union[1]:

>When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed.

Now, while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has. Gentlemen can disagree that this was or was not a realistic understanding of the security and geopolitical situation at that time, but it's genuinely odd that everyone acts like Russia is the sole aggressor in this.

[1] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...

[JumpCrisscross]

> while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has

Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements. The supposed agreement was made in the context of Germany's reunification, something the Soviets not only agreed to but memorialized in various written agreements, none of which mention this supposed understanding.

Also, wasn't the motivation for the 2014 invasion Ukraine's potential membership in the EU?

[remarkEon]

>Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements.

I'm going to go ahead and take the word of the former ambassador to Soviet Union at face value. You can reject it based on your own analysis as you see fit. I'm not necessarily trying to take a particular side here, but one thing I have a problem with is that the "Status Quo" of "America runs security for Europe" isn't really a relevant or wise way to view things anymore. That perspective seems to drive the vast majority of discussion on this topic and it portends a level of competency and reach that I don't think the US military has anymore. So some realism is needed.

[somedude895]

> The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections

By framing this whole thing as a hostility by the US towards Russia, you're saying that Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation, which can choose to ally with whomever and join whichever organization they want. So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian perspective.

[loourr]

Yes Ukraine is a sovereign nation but NATO is not. The US and Russia have an agreement that NATO will not encroach onto Russias border which allowing Ukraine to join (a US decision) would be a violation of.

It's akin to arguing that Cuba joining a Russian military alliance and re-installing ICBMs on their territory is totally fine because Cuba is a sovereign nation and can do whatever they want.

[eternalban]

There is no such agreement. Produce the documents.

Also the Russian demands (per their 2 'treaty' proposals) is for restoration of geopolitical map to 1997. It is true (and interesting) that Western press tries to formulate this as "about Ukraine" but the documents (which are plain English) clearly demand a strategic retreat and restoration of spheres of influence between great powers.

From the Russian perspective, it is certainly true that having forward nuclear capable installations bordering Russia renders Russian options for nuclear retaliation null and void. This is something Putin spent a great deal of time explaining a few years ago: it disrupts the Russia MAD protocols and thus is "dangerous" (per Putin) in that Russians seeing (nuclear capable) stuff flying over from across the border have no way to determine if the attack is conventional or nuclear. So what Russians want is really a long enough window for the MAD protocols to be meaningful. TLDR: Russia believes these installations create the opportunity for decapitating Nuclear First Strike by NATO on Russia.

I think this is the biggest failing of the reporting class regarding this (imho fairly serious) development: framing this as about Ukraine whereas it is strictly about great power balance. The subtext here is that our chattering classes no longer consider Russia a "great power" and thus dismiss those concerns. The most sensible approach for Russians is to place equivalent hardware in Cuba and Venezuela, and equalize the "first strike" insecurities. If West then smashes the Russian installations, then I suppose Russians can go ahead and do the same to everything NATO "post 1997" in "former Warsaw Pact" nations.

[loourr]

Great analysis, I agree with your points.

[remarkEon]

>So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian perspective.

Ukraine choose Yanukovych and what it got in return was a western-backed revolution to oust him. If we're keeping score, only one side has actually done a color revolution in this country and it isn't Russia.

[tymofiy]

Yes, it was Ukraine doing the revolution. Yanukovich lost elections in 2004, and his win in 2010 was marginal. His corruption and brutality made him quite unpopular with the people by 2014. His attempts to consolidate power made him quite unpopular with half of Ukrainian oligarchs as well.