[mysecretaccount]

My understanding is that no one (serious) is defending Russia, but claiming that Ukraine is a new battleground for the West vs. Russia and that the NATO membership proposal/the 2014 coup was antagonistic like the annexation of Crimea. What is wrong with that claim?

Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.

[eonwe]

Sure, it all could've been avoided.

Say, by similar vassalization as Belarus has gone through.

Ukraine was too free of a society for that as many of its members did not want that.

[TestSIM1]

I think it boils down to this:

1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence.

2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime.

From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no. And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.

[mysecretaccount]

All of that seems sensible, but I am not sure it clears up my confusion: if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application? If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?

I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.

[mlyle]

Ukraine has made no NATO application (they last had a membership action plan in 2009). They've been told that they would not succeed or meet the criteria currently.

[mysecretaccount]

Thanks. I typed from memory - the demand was that Ukraine not enter NATO, not related to an application.

[mlyle]

Yah. One can't really let Russia make NATO promise to never let a certain country in. But NATO wasn't really eager to admit Ukraine.

Of course, Ukraine really wanted to be in NATO, for obvious reasons...

Here's the deal, from my standpoint. Russia is declining in relevance.

* Demographically, they're shrinking and aging.

* Economically, post-Crimea sanctions have blunted any growth.

* Trade / exchange--- petroleum becomes less relevant with time.

* Diplomatically, they're already pariahs from many past misdeeds.

* Culturally/socially, they've stagnated as well.

Clawing for land around them-- through proxy conflicts in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, etc-- offers them a small chance of continued relevance. It's probably not a winning strategy, but it's at least one which could be winning. When you're in a bad situation, if you want to keep playing the game, you need to make the moves that at least could lead to a win.

[markvdb]

What would be the use of trying to negotiate with that man, unless backed up by credible military threat?

The good news is that at almost 70, he doesn't have eternal life. The bad news is his replacement will probably be a similar sociopath.

[TestSIM1]

>if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application?

Euromaidan happened 2013. Putin already lost the Ukraine back then. By annexing the Crimea and sending Russian troops now he is taking the Ukraine back.

I may be mistaken but I think whether the Ukraine was actually joining NATO or not wasn't really relevant in this conflict IMHO.

>If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?

For the couples months there were negotiations. Was there a possibility to avoid the current conflict?

I think unless you're the U.S./Russian diplomat it's impossible to answer this question.

[warner_of_doom]

Do you think this was right?:

NATO proposed Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO in 2005-2008, in the clear knowledge that this would destabilize the situation.

France, Germany, and others were against this. The proposal began the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJBQikfYyKs

We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.

"F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.

Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy".

Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.

[warner_of_doom]

Thank you for having the patience to say what I wanted to say.

I am not a pro-Putin guy, but, if we don't recognize our part in this chaos, then, we're just promoting more of it.