[chii]

> bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe

the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).

I think they must give up this notion. If russia turned into what germany is today after the fall of the USSR, they'd be prosperous. It would mean capitulation (to the "west"). Of course, this would mean that the oligarchs do not get their wealth, so there's no impetus for this course of action from anyone. The US is also not keep to have a "marshall plan" like they had with the post WW2 period to rebuild.

So perhaps this war in ukraine is "inevitable".

[pphysch]

> the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).

Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.

[OrvalWintermute]

> Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Because they lack our equivalent situational awareness around missiles, there is a definite logic to their actions.

> The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.

Excellent point. I've been amazed how completely Russian the East of Ukraine is.

Just like we protect Mexico & Canada, and we have the Monroe Doctrine around Old European Powers playing in the Western Hemisphere, so also, do other great powers have an obligation to protect their turf. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We were willing to blockade Cuba to get our Russian missiles. And yet, our Mainstream Media and Political Class is beating the War Drum to further escalate the situation.

[lalaland1125]

> The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO.

Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.

Similarly, Finland and Sweden had almost zero interest in NATO until Russia did their full invasion of Ukraine this year.

Russia's actions simply make no sense under the theory that Russia is trying to protect their borders from NATO.

[lazide]

It does if you think like an abusive spouse. ‘Stop looking at the neighbor or I’ll beat you silly’ kinda looks like it works and all, until they sneak away anyway.

[DeathArrow]

>Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.

Ucraine applied to NATO in 2008.

[hnov]

Technically, Yanukovych was removed 2 days after the Russian invasion started.

[melony]

Careful, you will get downvoted and flagged if you bring up Realpolitik and international relations on HN. Many idealistic people here get real sensitive about subjects that do not conform to their narrow world view.

[zuminator]

But Washington hasn't invaded Ukraine to force it to submit to its domination. In a free world, nations should be free to decide whether they want to be "influenced" by other nations, and to what extent.

[DeathArrow]

No, but US invaded countless other countries. One of the points of the article is that a financial war can produce as much casualties as an old fashioned war. And US can both wage financial wars and threat with such a war. So, no, US does not always need to physically invade another country. It can produce some damage by other means.

[chii]

The issue is that the kremlin does not believe that any country would "freely" make this choice - it must be some sort of coercion from the west.

[DeathArrow]

But it kind of is. They are basically saying that if we don't deem you as "democratic" according to our standards, we won't allow you to conduct trade.

[pphysch]

Many Ukrainians and Russians would disagree vis-a-vis the deadly 2014 coup.

[pm90]

> Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

Moscow is trying to but failing; and the global response to cut off Russia has been lead by Washington.

[friedman23]

The concept of sphere of influence is antiquated and barbaric.

[pphysch]

...says the nation with 700 overseas military bases and the global reserve currency.

"Competition is wasteful and antiquated, said the monopoly-holder"