[imjustforyou]

I would highly suggest you watch this informative lecture from an IR professor examining the causes of the current crisis in Ukraine (a lecture, mind you, given nearly a decade ago that accurately projected forward to now, perhaps the one mistake being that the lecturer did not expect Putin to attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

The tl;dw: the West has pursued a policy since the end of the Cold War to march NATO and the EU to Russia's doorstep. Each time tangible actions or declarations have occurred, Russia has clearly expressed that it views this as an existential threat and that it will not tolerate NATO or the EU on its doorstep. We have ignored these warnings and continued this policy. Ultimately, it is not clear we have any good reason to be doing this for our own strategic interests, especially paired with the rise of China.

[michaelmrose]

Nothing about Russia's neighbors forming a defensive alliance is an attack or justifies a war of aggression. Russia was never endangered by such. Nuclear weapons in and of themselves represent sufficient check on any ambitions. The only way for Russians to end up in piles of blood and meat was to march their own people to their deaths in foreign lands where they could safely be slaughtered without provoking Armageddon. If the Russian people ought to be afraid of anyone they ought to fear their leaders.

[EGreg]

NATO was the one who tried to get Russia’s neighbors to all join. Pew polls and others have shown that a solid majority of Ukrainians did NOT want to join NATO. How is habing Yuschenko do it anyway, any different than Yanukovich agreeing to cheap Russian gas and loans? If that makes Yanukovich a stooge of Russia then Yuschenko was a stooge of NATO.

When NATO pushed Russia’s neighbors to join, their populations didn’t want it. Russia wanted to join and NATO rejected them. Why?

NATO has nuclear sharing agreements, and situates their armies next to the Russian border and buzzes their airspace regularly. Why?

Boris Yeltsin opposed NATO expansion, he did everything USA wanted (including “shock therapy”) to the point where his own parliament tried to oust him and USA propped him up. But no matter how much he protested NATO’s expansion, USA told him to go pound sand. This isn’t a Putin thing.

Furthermore don’t forget that NATO isn’t a “purely defensive alliance”. They bombed Serbia without UN approval, and declared Kosovo independent (that set a precedent for what Russia did in, say the Russo-Geogia war, and now in Ukraine).

They also invaded Libya and left it as a failed state with millions of people living under warlords, including terrorists from ISIS and Boko Haram. Why do you not even care? No this organization isn’t “purely defensive”.

No “great power” country, not USA nor China nor Russia, would allow itself to be gradually surrounded with bases and missiles from a hostile military alliance. USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuba was perfectly rational to ask USSR to install missiles on Cuba. And Kennedy violated international law by blockading Cuba during the missile crisis. But I totally support what he did, because USA couldn’t have nukes so close to Florida. (Nevermind that USA did the same thing secretly in Turkey, before the Soviets). Rather than engaging in more hypocrisy, they both deescalated and solved things with mutual respect. That’s how it should be now, too.

Where I agree with you is that every country’s public should hold their leaders accountable, rather than blaming the public of the other country.

[selectodude]

And I'd highly suggest that you read Mearsheimer's more recent interview with The New Yorker where he reminds us that he's a complete fraud that shouldn't be spoken about anymore.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-p...