[alkonaut]

> a coup to oust Yanukovych because he changed his mind at signing an economic agreement with EU and signed one with Russia instead.

Does a coup in a foreign country form a valid pretext for invasion you mean?

> Since 2014 NATO has been training Ukrainian forces.

Yes. Are you trying to argue that this forms a reasonable pretext for invading a neighboring country? Or how else is it relevant?

> it's ok for Ukraine to become a member of NATO?

Of course. It's their choice as a sovereign state to have any alliance with anyone.

It seems you are enumerating a number of things that Russia disagreed with or that was even outright hostile or Anti-russian. But that doesn't form a pretext for invasion does it?

> Cuba was not allowed to have Soviet missiles

Accoring to who? The US? Ukraine? The soviet union? Nato? No. It was the US that considered this unacceptable. And the Soviet Union considered the placement of MRBMs in Turkey unacceptable. So you might argue the US "started" that. But a key fact in that story is of course that the drama ended with both countries withdrawing those missiles, luckily (The US from Turkey, and The USSR from Cuba).

The US certainly hasn't always behaved will in international relations. But don't try to make this a whataboutism discussion about "NATO is the US and the US did X so no one can point fingers at russia for doing similar thing Y".

Ukraine isn't in NATO any more than Austria is, and Ukraine takes no responsibility for past US or NATO actions. Ukraine is a sovereign country that has a right to territorial integrity. Did Cuba have that as well? Yes!

If Ukraine feels it needs a military alliance, that's their choice. If Russia fels that the threat of a big military alliance on their doorstep is too much, then they are of course entitled to build up defenses on their borders. This would create tensions, and those tensions could need addressing.

But the bottom line is: if a country invades another country, the case is pretty clear cut. It doesn't matter whether someone else made the same error. It's wrong and must be condemned. There is no valid pretext for this invasion.

[theironhammer]

"Of course. It's their choice as a sovereign state to have any alliance with anyone"

Really? So Canada can become a close ally of China? Maybe invite Chinese military to train Canadian troops? Maybe even allow the Chinese Navy to use Canadian ports?

Is Canada "free" to do that?

And there is Iraq. They were invaded because they had WMDs. Oops sorry Iraq we were wrong. Oh right Blair got Bush to get UN approval so they had to fake WMD evidence. Just ask Colin Powell.

Cuban missile crisis ended Peacefully because both Kennedy and Khrushchev wouldn't listen to their respective War hawk cabinets.

Ukraine was a defacto NATO member before the invasion.

[alkonaut]

> And there is Iraq. They were invaded because they had WMDs. Oops sorry Iraq we were wrong

That was an invasion on incorrect pretexts. But you are resorting to whataboutism again. Can one not condemn both invasions? Ukraine wasn’t part of the Iraq invasion…

> Ukraine was a defacto NATO member before the invasion.

No, NATO members are defended by the troops of other members, not just their money and equipment. You aren’t a “de facto” member otherwise.

Countries that would be defended by NATO troops (and not only NATO weapons and money) could perhaps be said to be de facto members, I’d argue that applicants like Sweden have been already before applying.

But whether or not someone is a de facto member of NATO or not doesn’t change the fact that invasions of sovereign countries are, well, bad.

[deepthunder]

"That was an invasion on incorrect pretexts" Colin Powel knew beforehand that the evidence of WMDs was FAKE! That's why he demanded that the Director of the CIA sit right behind him within camera shot when he made the presentation on TV. It was a lie and Colin Powel knew it was a lie.

NATO members ARE helping Ukraine. They are behaving a lot like they would if Ukraine was an OFFICIAL member of NATO. They only reason they dont send troops is because Russia is a NUCLEAR power. Simple as that.

I'm not arguing whether the Invasion was good or bad or moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. I'm arguing that, over what the US has been doing in Ukraine for years was bound to provoke a Russian invasion.

International Relations is ruled by power not morals.

[_kbh_]

> NATO members ARE helping Ukraine. They are behaving a lot like they would if Ukraine was an OFFICIAL member of NATO.

They are behaving like Ukraine is a country that is friendly towards NATO but not a member.

> They only reason they dont send troops is because Russia is a NUCLEAR power. Simple as that.

You know that the entire reason for NATO was to stave of the USSR and now Russia right?, saying 'NATO won't intervene with a nuclear power' is useless when your alliance was literally formed to fight a nuclear power.

NATO isn't intervening because Ukraine isn't a member, is that simple.

> I'm not arguing whether the Invasion was good or bad or moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. I'm arguing that, over what the US has been doing in Ukraine for years was bound to provoke a Russian invasion.

no one did anything 'provoke' an invasion, that just removes all agency from Russia itself, and Ukraine. Russia is the sole entity that decided to invade, no one else made that decision for them.

Russia is the one solely to blame for all the war crimes that are being committed in Ukraine right.

> International Relations is ruled by power not morals.

Then clearly Russia is going to be knocked down a beg in international relations, because its quite clear that Russias army cannot even get to a city less then 300km from there border in 6 months, and not even against, but against a country using second rate NATO gear.

[alkonaut]

I’m only arguing the invasion is a violation of international law.

Of course power is a layer on top of that, but we don’t sit idly watching countries being invaded.

The question at this point is: should the international community be ready to accept (any) escalation in order to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity (1991 borders)? And that’s mostly up to Ukraine who suffers most of the sacrifices, but the answer must be yes. We must ensure this example is made. I’m more afraid of a world where Russia annexes an inch of Donbas than even direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

I’m arguing that at the end of the day “spheres of influence” or “buffer zones” aren’t relevant concepts here. Basically: borders are holy, cross one and that’s it.

The mistake the West has made here is not suring up Ukraines borders sooner, and of course not reacting stronger when Crimea was invaded. That invasion should have come with all the sanctions we see now, and more.