[unclebucknasty]

Russia annexed Crimea and has been engaged in a proxy war in Donbas for 8 years. The Kremlin has now amassed 100K - 200K troops at Ukraine's border.

Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war.

Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?

[macilacilove]

You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.

[unclebucknasty]

Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something.

You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.

[Regular-Former]

One reason to incentive warmongering I assume is domestic politics in the Western countries: Biden's and Boris Johnson approval ratings are pretty low, and nothing better than war to give it a boost. Take Johnson for instance: some days ago the news was his parties during the pandemic, but, alas, not anymore.

[macilacilove]

Ukraine is at the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, where Western powers regularly encourage color revolutions bringing the country to a point of civil war. "The west" has virually no skin in the game but leaders would prefer Russia sanctioned and isolated so that once again US has unchallanged superpower status.

Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad.

The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).

[unclebucknasty]

Aside from the fact that some of your statements are plainly incorrect, you're claiming that the U.S. is fomenting war simply because it wants "unchallenged superpower status".

That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts.

Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality.

Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict.

Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.

[consp]

While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.

[ptr]

NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.

[elzbardico]

No. It is not. The pressure for Ukraine to join NATO has been simmering for decades before the west financed a coup to put literal nazis in power in Ukraine. Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex

[dragonwriter]

> Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex

This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war.

Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.

[elzbardico]

Of course, the pressure come from the US, which has proven in the last decades to resort to this kind of propaganda blitz before they embark in another unjustified military adventure. This is another "OMG!!!! WMDs in Iraq". And as always the American media does its part in manufacturing consent for a war that nobody needs now. Make no mistake, the US government is the aggressor here.

[jacquesm]

This comment did not age well.

[nathanaldensr]

Or neither.

[elzbardico]

Russia is defending herself from the aggressive encroachment of NATO. It is not very different from the US in the past not wanting Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.

[tim333]

There is a sort of aggression in that the West, and most the world's people really, like human rights and democracy and oppose the murderous dictator for life thing. Obvs that threatens Putin and he doesn't want that stuff setting in too much in his neighborhood.

[iqanq]

The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards, wants missiles in Ukraine pointing at Putin's face.

[throw0101a]

Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so.

Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

[VictorPath]

> Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor

Some Islamic terrorists use terror to try to form a Qoqaz caliphate on Russian territory, and Russia fighting this development within their own borders is "being an aggressor". Meanwhile the US flies to to the other side of the world to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which I suppose was a defensive action by its Department of Defense.

[sudosysgen]

If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much.

NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act).

For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors).

The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.

[throw0101a]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion

"How Russia Got So Big":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4

My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.

[sudosysgen]

I'm not trying to convince you not to worry about Russia. I'm explaining why NATO is worrisome to many countries. You can be as worried about Russia as you'd like, and they're going to be just as worried about NATO, and so are the citizens of many other countries.

[whythre]

>The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.

As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.

[sudosysgen]

Sure. But when you're building up an offensive stance you can only expect hostility back. And it helps strongmen get into power, too.

[Koshkin]

It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.

[consp]

> The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards

If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.

[bandyaboot]

If countries close to Russia both geographically and historically are more comfortable aligning with NATO rather than Russia, perhaps the problem is with Russia.

[VictorPath]

> Russia annexed Crimea

The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.

[jcranmer]

Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.

[VictorPath]

The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.

[dragonwriter]

> The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries

No, he didn't.

And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.

[HWR_14]

Except he didn't promise the USSR anything like that. The only commitment he made was to relay the request for a commitment to not expand NATO to the US negotiating team. It was rejected by the US team and the language the USSR suggested never made it into any treaty.

[disgruntledphd2]

I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO.

Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.

[moltar]

… and because American naval base was to be built there.

https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti...

The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.

[disgruntledphd2]

Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.

By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities.

And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.

[VictorPath]

> British government to invade and occupy Ireland

The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.

The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

[disgruntledphd2]

> The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.

Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation.

The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again).

> The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri...

While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it.

But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?

[VictorPath]

> If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are

If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998

The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

> I also mentioned India

Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.

[Koshkin]

A referendum held amidst annexation cannot possibly be legitimate.

[disgruntledphd2]

> If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia.

So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.

However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.

> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).

> The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

I feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.

> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,

I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.

> I also mentioned India

I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.

On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.

Mongolia would like to have a word.

[dragonwriter]

> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.

No, it hasn't.

From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954).

(People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)

[Koshkin]

Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.

[dragonwriter]

> Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.

The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.

[Koshkin]

> its own entity (prior to 1945)

Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)

[justsomehnguy]

Strange, Wikipedia thinks it was a part of RSFSR:

> The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

[0]

> On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.

> Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:

> To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.

Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR":

> The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty

[1]

Does USA position on this matters?

Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree

[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf