[microtonal]

Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security,

Every rational actor (including Putin) knows that not a single NATO country is interested in invading Russia. He might have been worried about a democratic uprising in his country like Ukraine in 2014, but given how much an autocracy Russia has become, that's pretty unlikely now.

Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.

It's very clear that Putin wants to annex countries that he considers Russia's property (mostly former Soviet states). He has wars in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia to back it.

Putin's word in a peace treaty will be worth as much as him saying that he wouldn't invade Ukraine up till the invasion. Nada. The only thing that will work is military deterrence.

[hackinthebochs]

>It's very clear that Putin wants to annex countries that he considers Russia's property

Nothing more than fantasy that justifies the warhawk stance among liberals. It is completely disconnected from reality. What Russia wants is safety from NATO. NATO in Ukraine would have been a strategic noose from which Russia would never escape. Ukrainian neutrality lead to peace. Ukraine with NATO aspirations lead to this war. The simplest answer is the right one in this case.

[nickpp]

> It is completely disconnected from reality.

Russian conquest wars in the last 30 years: Chechnya 1994–1996 and 1999–2009, Georgia 2008 (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) & Ukraine (2014 - today).

> Ukrainian neutrality lead to peace.

When Russians invaded Donbas in 2014, Ukraine actually had a non-aligned, neutral status. It only invited the Russians as they perceived it as weakness. Ukriaine's effort to join NATO was in hope of gaining a defense umbrella.

[hackinthebochs]

To call them "conquest wars" is just a-historical self-serving nonsense.

>When Russians invaded Donbas in 2014, Ukraine actually had a non-aligned, neutral status.

They had a non-aligned status up until the moment their elected government was overthrown. At that point Ukraine's status is undefined. How was the government overthrown you ask? A US regime change operation: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ghs32...

[nickpp]

No.

Government was overthrown in February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament renounced Ukraine's non-aligned status in December 2014 while Russia annexed Crimea in February/March 2014 and attacked Donbas in April 2014 - all while while Ukraine was still neutral and non-aligned.

> US regime change operation

I haven't seen any actual proof for that, only speculation like what you are linking to.

LE:

And you'd need some strong proof considering that everything that happened afterwards completely vindicated Ukrainian people's fear of Russia and their desire to get closer to the West.

As someone who lives in Eastern Europe and who also lived through a bloody revolution to get out from under the Russian boot - let me tell you: we don't need external influences to desire to live in peace and freedom, to pursue our happiness and prosperity. We are just like you, people of the West, in that regard. We don't want to live under Russian occupation any more than you do and we are willing to pay the blood price for the privilege.

[hackinthebochs]

The point at which neutral status is officially renounced is of no consequence. When the existing polity is replaced, any agreements or expectations of the behavior of the nation are moot. Hence their status being "undefined".

>I haven't seen any actual proof for that, only speculation like what you are linking to.

Yes, it turns out sometimes you need to make inferences and compare historical events and M-Os to get a clear picture of what happened out of the public eye. The fact that some people can't even entertain the notion that the US had a hand in Ukraine's revolution just underscores your psychological need to feel like moral heroes while calling for escalation in the war. But there is enough circumstantial evidence (like the Nuland intercept) that paints a very clear picture to those who aren't taken in by motivated reasoning.

[kelnos]

And sometimes it's just conspiracy-theory drivel, thought up by people who have an axe to grind.

[int_19h]

If Russia wants safety from NATO, why is it annexing territory that brings its borders closer to NATO?

[hackinthebochs]

Safety from NATO means being in a strong defensive position with respect to NATOs ability to project force. This isn't just about proximity, but about control of strategic resources. The US pushed Turkey through NATO ascension because access to the Black Sea was deemed strategically valuable in an eventual war with the USSR. Russia needs to counter that threat and losing the port in Crimea would be a strategic blunder.

[int_19h]

They have had the port in Crimea since 2014. They still wanted more.

Hell, when they started the war, it was supposedly about "demilitarization". By now they have officially annexed four more regions of Ukraine (well, the parts they control) in addition to Crimea, two of which wasn't even occupied until 2022.

[hackinthebochs]

The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.

[int_19h]

You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s.

Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next.

Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?

[microtonal]

This is a false narrative that Putin propagates all the time (besides that Ukraine is run by nazis) and is not supported by history. He did attack Georgia and Chechnya. There was no danger at all of these countries joining NATO anytime soon.

At any rate, it has been a severe miscalculation on Putin's part. He thought they could take Ukraine in days and the aggression led Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

[hackinthebochs]

>This is a false narrative that Putin propagates all the time

It turns out that bad people do speak the truth sometimes, at least when the truth is in their corner:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ghs32...

[kelnos]

That "truth" is speculative fiction. Nothing more than unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory nonsense.

[hackinthebochs]

It's weird to see people say stuff like this. Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world? Do you not find it at all plausible? The US has a very long history of doing this very sort of thing[1]. Do you think the three letter agencies have just been sitting on their hands in recent decades? I just don't get how people can engage in such willful ignorance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[kelnos]

I can simultaneously find something plausible and see that there's historical precedent for it, but not accept unsubstantiated fantasy stories made up on the internet.

[aguaviva]

The reasoning you're expressing here is basically: "Heck it's plausible, right? Therefore it might as well have happened. There's no need to actually substantiate that it did. It suffices to just have a gut feeling that it happened."

Nevermind the Jeffrey Sachs interview that no one has time to watch. His take has been debunked elsewhere. What matters here is your own reasoning here, which is incredibly specious. If you can't see the obvious flaw in the argument that you laid down, then I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, here's another helpful suggestion: If you're on your favorite website some day, looking for answers to what's going in the world, and you see the top-posted comment for some article or interview that you thought really rocked is some obviously useless, snarky drivel like the following (taken from the Reddit link you posted):

  Putin just woke up one day, stumbled his toe or something, and decided to invade Ukraine.

Then that should perhaps suggest to you that, far from being your friend, that website, and the articles and videos that get top-posted to it, are probably kinda dodgy. And that maybe you should taking the content you find there with a heaping portion of salt. And that you might want to try fact-checking the content and arguments you find there, instead simply believing it all outright. Or better yet, just stop wasting your time on that website altogether.

Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world?

I know all about it, and can probably cite dozens of instances off the top of my head. But none of that history translates to evidence that US-initiated regime change actually happened in a given country X, in year Y. It's just innuendo, nothing more.