[mppm]

Ah... NATO expansion? Alleged discrimination against the Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine? Alleged foreign interference in the Maidan revolution? Not that I'm trying to start a discussion here, but dismissing the other side's arguments as "not even meant to be sensical" is exactly what I was arguing against.

[wk_end]

None of this is a legitimate casus belli in any sense of the term. You’re suggesting we ought to take seriously the geopolitical equivalent of “he looked at me funny”.

[mc32]

I would you say the Cuban missile crisis was made up by the Kennedy admin? The establishment was ready to war if the missiles were not removed. Being in our “backyard” and sphere of influence (LatAm) we didn’t take to it too kindly.

[wk_end]

I would say that the Cuban Missile Crisis, indeed, would not have constituted a good reason to invade Cuba. US foreign policy during the Cold War was often pretty indefensible.

But there’s still a number of things about this situation that make the comparison flimsy. The relationship between the west and Russia was - and actually still is - significantly less tense than the relationship between the Soviets and the west during the Cold War, for one.

But moreover, the way everything went down was very different.

In the CMC, the Soviets installed their missiles, the US caught wind of this, and pursued a diplomatic solution. The public was, generally, made aware of what was going on and what was at stake.

Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy. Russia built up its forces along the border in secret and launched a surprise invasion. From the jump they’ve been offering shifting explanations for the “special military operation” - is it about NATO expansion or “de-Nazification”? - which is one reason why we shouldn’t take any of those explanations especially seriously.

[js8]

> Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy.

I don't think you're paying attention. Bush's invite of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO in 2007 (against the opinion of France and Germany) was probably a cause of Russian invasion into South Ossetia.

And just about recently a newly chosen top NATO chief has been promoting path for Ukraine to enter NATO (and so-called "West Germany model"), despite that Putin clearly demanded Ukraine neutrality and NATO's own rule about not admitting members with an ongoing territorial disputes.

I can hardly imagine how could Russians be clearer about opposing NATO expansion.

[libertine]

> I can hardly imagine how could Russians be clearer about opposing NATO expansion.

That's a very confusing statement because Russia signed agreements, charters and memorandums that clearly stated that every country is entitled to their own economic and defensive alliances.

So it's not clear at all - and even if it was clear, then it should become imperative to have Ukraine join NATO as soon as possible to make it blatantly clear that Russia can't dictate what other sovereign nations choose for their economic and defensive alliances.

The real question is: why aren't Russians questioning and making their government accountable for not following their agreements and destroying decades of diplomacy for the sake of one man?

[aguaviva]

Bush's invite of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO in 2007 (against the opinion of France and Germany) was probably a cause of Russian invasion into South Ossetia.

Bush did not "invite" those countries to join NATO. Only NATO can do that, and it famously chose not to do that at the Bucharest Summit the following year (and to explicitly deny those countries invites), precisely because of France and Germany's objections. I'm not sure what you think you can gain here by attempting to spin the situation into the opposite of what it was.

Regardless - the "cause" of what Russian armed forces did in Georgia in 2008 was Putin's ordering them to. Nothing the West did made or "caused" him to do anything.

I can hardly imagine how could Russians be clearer about opposing NATO expansion.

Post-2022 the discussion is entirely moot, and I don't see why the world should begin to care what the current Russian regime thinks about NATO at this point.

NATO expansion was never the real reason for that invasion - but once Putin chose to go in, he completely extinguished whatever moral capital Russia may have had that issue.

[ultimafan]

>Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy.

To be fair, without saying that their position is a defensible one- they've been pretty vocal about Ukraine not becoming aligned with the West for almost 20 years now if not longer, and politicians in the West have been vocal about the exact opposite for at least as long. I see people saying online that what's happening now was completely irrational and unexpected but that's not really true. We know it's a sore point for them and have been goading them with a "will we won't we" over a clear red line they've drawn for a long while now. https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html

[libertine]

That's a good list of Russian-fueled narratives that have little to no grounds in reality - as a kind way of saying they're lies and conspiracy theories.

> NATO expansion?

You seem to have forgotten all the agreements, charters, and memorandums the Soviet Union and Russia signed stating that Sovereign Countries are entitled to their own alliances and strategic partnerships. You also seem to have forgotten that even Putin hinted at Clinton the idea of Russia joining NATO. Regarding Ukraine, the population only started to care to join NATO after 2014, but started to trend since the invasion of Georgia.

Even Gorbachev himself - the man who was allegedly involved in that so-called "no NATO expansion" myth said it was a lie and a myth[0]. I didn't even make logical sense to have such a red line.

> Alleged discrimination against the Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine?

So you invaded and annex a country in a genocidal war based on "alleged discrimination"? Who did something similar to this... ah yeah... Nazi Germany also made up some discrimination stories about ethnic germans being under threat by polish people.

> Alleged foreign interference in the Maidan revolution?

Another conspiracy theory and lie... God forbid Ukrainians having the capacity to revolt against a president who turned his back on Ukrainians will to join the EU, in exchange for a deal under the table with Russia that no one knew the terms of.

Oh and by the way, the US wanted Yanukovich to remain president - it was the overwhelming majority of the parliament that didn't want the corrupt fellow in power any longer.

At least get your facts straight, with a little bit of research you can get access to this information.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rPnAlbYfa7E

[thereisnospork]

Being non-sensical is the point of that school of rhetoric.

Briefly summarized: Power is being able to say something false, that the audience knows is false, that the speaker knows the audience knows is false, and that the audience knows that the speaker knows the audience knows is false -- but the audience can't/wont speak up.