[slantedview]

> it is somehow NATOs fault.

NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

[EthanHeilman]

> it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

Unless you mean, the only way to have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been to accept Ukraine into NATO, I strongly disagree with you here.

Russia invaded Ukraine not because Russia is fearful of NATO but because Russia wished to recreate the Soviet empire. It's just plain old imperialism.

[hindsightbias]

Years Ukraine not admitted to NATO: 1992-2022

But it was going to happen any minute now. I wonder if these sme people think Turkey is going to be admitted to the EU…

There’s a sucker born every minute.

[EthanHeilman]

Yep. The US told Ukraine it was never going to happen. Originally Ukraine had wanted neutrality but Russia kept making territorial claims on Ukraine land pushing Ukraine to seek protection from Russian imperialist ambitions.

If Ukraine eventually gets NATO membership it will be because of Russian's invasion.

[hughesjj]

Heck Crimea basically guaranteed ukraine couldn't be admitted because of the whole no territorial disputes clause, and they were (nor are they now) nowhere near ready to acquiese on that.

[dragonwriter]

> Heck Crimea basically guaranteed ukraine couldn't be admitted because of the whole no territorial disputes clause

There is no such clause in the North Atlantic Treaty, and many NATO members (including founding members) were admitted with territorial disputes, including with other NATO members, either admitted earlier or simultaneously admitted.

NATO members are required to pledge to resolve disputes of any kind in accordance with the principles of the UN, endeavouring to do so by means which are both peaceful and not disruptive of international peace and security, but without prejudice to any of their rights under the UN Charter including those of individual and collective self-defense, and to declare that at the time of their accession to the treaty none of their existing "engagements" violate those principles. (See, particularly, Articles 1, 7, and 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty.)

There is no reasonable reading of the Treaty which would prohibit a new member from being admitted while while some of its territory is under hostile occupation or while engaged in a defensive war on its won territory against an aggressor; it may make it more difficult to achieve the required unanimity, but there is no "territorial disputes clause" preventing it.

[dragonwriter]

> NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep

NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side.

> despite repeated promises not to

Assuming any such promises were made (which only one dubious alleged instance is ever pointed to, so hardly "repeatedly" in even the best case), they were personal guarantees between individual leaders of the USA and USSR, not durable binding commitments (note the absence of a treaty, executive agreement, public document or even mere joint contemporaneous oral statement of any kind) binding governments to their terms beyond the term of individual officials and heritable after the fall of one of the involved states by some successor regime.

And even had such an undocumented commitment existed and had validity, it was implicitly nullified by Russia's attempts to join NATO.

> Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

It's not clear at all that it was. For one thing, Georgia was invaded immediately after NATO complied with the Russian request in 2008 not to extend Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine, and Ukraine subsequently abandoned efforts to join NATO until after Russia invaded and purported to annex much of the country in 2014. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the cause of, rather than a response to, recent NATO expansion.

[racional]

NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side.

Well that's not a fair assessment. It's technically true that NATO was founded on the USSR's borders via Norway. But there's not doubt that the expansion east of Germany, to include not just nearly all of Eastern Europe but a much more sensitive position directly on Russia's border (talking about the inclusion of the Baltics here) was hugely significant, and let's face it, also clearly a snub to Russia (despite their also wanting to join at one point; but that in no way mitigates the fact that NATO being expanded to their other countries was a move fundamentally aimed at Russia from the very start).

Not that this supports Russia's "because NATO" argument in any way; it's just pure garbage, of course. One can even argue that the expansion up to countries (such as the Baltics) that have been historically victims of Russian aggression is an intrinsically good thing. But there's no reason to attempt to water down the fact that the post-1990 expansion of NATO was hugely significant, and intrinsically meant as an anti-Russian manouevre (one can argue with perfectly good cause, in retrospect -- but there's no denying that import was there).

The fact that Norway and Russia shared a tiny border that most people don't even know about is entirely incidental to all of this.