That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.
> The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate.
We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join! Which brings us to the second point:
> Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war
Typical victim-aggressor reversal. It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor.
By the way, I speak a bit of Russian, have been to both Russia and Ukraine - East and West of the country - multiple times and have connections to people doing business there since the 1990s and we regularly converse. I'm not as knowledgeable as a real insider, but I'm also far form an armchair commenter. Also, I was a mix of sympathetic and willfully ignorant towards Russia all the way until 24 February. And it was Russian behavior during and accompanying the war, not that I (initially) cared much about the fate of Ukraine I have to admit. I realized I had suppressed and filtered a lot over the years, like most others.
> I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
I agree - we need to be much more forceful and less forgiving to Russian threats and atrocities!
> NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join!
NATO decides whether and how to expand their membership. They decide based on strategic considerations, like whether Russia would see allowing a member to join as a threat. NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable. In fact, many people predicted this would happen decades ago if NATO were to expand this way.
This is not excusing the aggressor's behaviour, this is a simple recognition that if you poke a bully, he's going to punch you in the face. This doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up to him, but it does mean that if you have a fragile peace with a nuclear bully, you should be careful about how you threaten that peace. We should have learned these lessons decades ago during the cold war, but seemed to have forgotten them.
> It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor.
Yes, that's a primary reason NATO was formed. Of course they want membership, that's perfectly normal and predictable. Ukraine would have joined long ago too but everyone recognized that that would have been a serious provocation, and ultimately a bad idea. It seems they thought they could incrementally creep towards Russia's borders and Russia wouldn't notice. They thought wrong.
> NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable.
This is a persistent myth that is not reality, the soviet president at the time even says that no such promise was ever made.
> NATO decides whether and how to expand their membership
You avoid the topic you find inconvenient because it completely destroys your strange notions: The nations asked NATIO to join.
There is no reason not to protect them from their aggressive neighbor!!
Why does it make any sense in your mind to let them be the victims of Russia and claim that this is somehow "correct"?
If Russia does not want NATO so close, maybe they should try a different approach towards their neighbors? Just an idea. It works for a lot of other countries who have zero fear towards a much stronger neighbor.
The same way Ukraine stayed neutral for so long: with agreements that NATO wouldn't encroach/allow membership as long as Russia doesn't expand. Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating.
Such agreements existed at the time and NATO continuously violated them in expanding membership towards Russia. It was a dangerous game and a lot of people have died because of it and because of Putin's paranoia.
Ukraine applied to NATO AFTER they got their land annexed, not before. Also, before Feb 24th, Ukraine is still years away from being accepted into NATO.
So no, whatever the real reason for the SMO was (highly likely to be oil), it was not because Putin/Russia was scared of being attack by NATO, and the agreement to not joining NATO will not stop the invasion.
The root of this thread is rejecting the idea of appeasement. Escalation that ultimately ends in appeasement is not a counterargument but evidence that appeasement is a valid strategy for ending a conflict when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you’re saying we should escalate and then appease, ok, but almost everyone I have engaged with on this is under the grip of a very poorly conceived Hitler analogy leading them to say that we must never, ever appease dictators. Meaning, I suppose, that as long as Putin remains in power, we must continue to escalate until he either gives up or nukes us all. What could go wrong?