[js8]

Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger.

Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia.

EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't offer any deescalation. (IMHO NATO should have kicked Turkey out of NATO - not a democratic country - in exchange for Ukraine to continue being sovereign neutral state.)

Neither side wants to deescalate. I think both sides behave as little children. But with rockets and nukes.

[AndrewDucker]

NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine.

People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.

[js8]

> NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine.

Morally you're correct, but on a practical level, Russia didn't want the NATO to be in Ukraine. Morality (or international law) doesn't always win - look at the Cuban missile crisis.

> People join NATO in self-defence against Russia.

Yes, the motivation of the joining countries is clear. What is less clear (and you should question), why they should be accepted - if such offers pose a risk of eventual escalation into a war. (I know it's not fair, but that's geopolitics.) It was the U.S. announcing in 2007 NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, despite Germany and France being against and no public/democratic discussion of this in Ukraine and Georgia (or any other NATO member). Is it hard to believe this is done for any reason other than imperial vanity?

> They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.

U.S. have attacked unprovoked countries all over the planet, why trust them more than Russia? Seems quite shortsighted.

[AndrewDucker]

Yes, the bully who keeps attacking their neighbours didn't want anyone to protect their neighbours.

Going along with this seems like a terrible idea, if you value the bully not slowly expanding until they're your neighbour.

[js8]

It's precisely this mindset, "us vs them", that neutral states cannot exist, which is at the heart of current escalation.

[CamperBob2]

"I only burglarized your home because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch" isn't the ironclad defense of Russian imperialism you seem to think it is.

[AndrewDucker]

Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club.

It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours.

[js8]

> Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club.

That kind of club might be fine, but NATO simply isn't it. Again, you're not asking the question, what is in it for the U.S. (to promise protection - with nukes - to those countries).

Look at my country - Czechia. After the end of Cold war, in the context of NATO, we have done more for American security than America did for ours. We had soldiers in Afghanistan and 11 of them died. During the same period, no American soldier has died defending Czech Republic.

> It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours.

NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone. I think it was a mistake - EU should have created its own defense, and start from a clean slate.

Anyway, I don't care much about the question of historic guilt. I commented here because I think western "leaders" should be honest about their goals vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, and they aren't.

[af78]

Ukraine was left out of NATO. When Russia first invaded in 2014, European leaders looked the other way. Claims that there plans for Ukraine to join NATO and that Russia felt threatened and was forced to attack are just lies to attempt to justify this war.

At the time fictions like "Russian-backed separatists" were made up to deny the reality: that it was a foreign invasion. Yet all the signs were there: for example, "separatist" leaders like Igor Girkin were citizens of Russia, not Ukraine; OSCE observers found military vehicles containing documentation indicating that the equipment had been maintained in Russia.

European leaders called for "deescalation", "political resolution"; seeing weakness and appeasement in the Minsk agreements, Putin escalated. That's the problem with aggressive leaders like Putin: if you look weak and vulnerable, they will attack you.

Russian leaders see Russia as an empire and regularly say Eurasia should extend from Lisbon to Vladivistok. Putin tries to terrorize us, stating that if we resist it will lead to "World War III" or "nuclear apocalypse". We must not fall for this, or we will gradually lose our freedoms.

[js8]

Look it up, in 2007 G.W.Bush invited Ukraine and Georgia to NATO. Also look up PNAC. Unfortunately, there was little interest from the U.S. side to end the cold war - they had to be a "world policeman".

Yes EU leaders called for deescalation, that is true. But the U.S., the most important NATO member, did not. There is a 2018 report from RAND that suggests Ukraine should be used as a tool to weaken Russia.

The Ukraine conflict, although there is a contribution from other causes (russian and ukrainian nationalism), is a proxy war between U.S. and Russia, a continuation of the cold war.

I don't disagree with you on Russia, but the US and EU (currently) is unfortunately not interested in deescalating.

[dgfitz]

Why would the US want to fight a proxy war with Russia? Before the recent Ukraine invasion, nobody really cared about Russia. They were just kind of around, cheating at the Olympics was like the big news if anyone talked about Russia.

What does Russia have that US would want to fight a proxy war over? Certainly isn’t technology or natural resources.

[js8]

The military industrial complex in the U.S. is constantly lobbying the American government to start and participate in wars. So after Afghanistan, some other place had to be found where to cause trouble, so that ḿilitary contracts can be made.

Now that Ukrainian resolve to fight is cooling off, you can see Trump administration planning more wars - in Palestine, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela..

These operations benefit wealthy class in the U.S. (the profit from government contracts) as well as a fat layer of middle class Americans who are involved in making wars.

Every country that exports weapons has this incentive, including Russia, but the U.S. is by far the largest country producing weapons it doesn't need internally. International arms trade should be IMHO completely banned, because it gives (capitalist) countries strong motivation to cause wars. It's a negative externality.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion.

You do realize NATO doesn't expand by itself? It's always a country that asks to join so that Russia can't attack it, not the other way round. NATO is not going around asking new countries to join. On the contrary: Ukraine already asked before the war and was rejected.

(Not to mention the absurdity of this argument when you consider why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.)

[general1465]

NATO is not expanding on it's own. It is expanding because states around Russia does not want to be attacked by Russa.

Or you think that Putin would be trying to swallow Ukraine, if Baltics would be outside NATO? Of course not, he would be going after Baltics. Easier prey.

[Yizahi]

"Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion."(c) - tell me now, exactly which NATO expansion has happened before the invasion of Ukraine, to trigger the war? You are lying, that's what it is.

PS: to anyone else reading this, the last NATO expansion in the Russian direction has happened 10 years before the invasion, when Putin was hugging western leaders and not bothered at all by the "scary NATO". This user is posting a retcon propaganda by a Kremlin. A lie.

[js8]

Russia started those wars to prevent Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, which was announced by G.W.Bush in 2007. I am not lying, read my comments more carefully.

[Yizahi]

This is an insane take. No one, not a single country, has even entertained an idea that Ukraine may join NATO. Not even in 2025, when everyone repeatedly tell Ukraine that NATO is out of the question, stop asking us. Even more, between 2010 and 2014 Ukrainian parliament has officially adopted a neutral status regarding NATO, just because it was clear it will never happen, NATO was too afraid.

So basically on one hand there is factual evidence that NATO did not expand towards Russia for 10 years before invasion, and that Ukraine got a firm rejection about joining NATO and resigned to it 4 years before invasion. And on the other hand is some remark of one person, no longer in charge of anything for a decade and who's remark contradicts all factual actions of his country and his government.

Yet again a kremlin lie, desperately trying to justify a war by looking for literally anything as a pretext and disregarding facts.

[js8]

I mean look it up: https://www.rferl.org/a/1075801.html (I thought it was on Wikipedia but it isn't anymore.)

Also, there is no need to speculate about my opinions - I am on this forum and can answer questions. I am quite decidedly not imperialist. :-) I understand that some people have difficulty understanding that somebody might take a position that doesn't conform to tribalistic friend-enemy distinction; but I do (and I am not alone). I think I have morally consistent stance on Ukraine/Russia, which is in fact in line with my stance on Palestine/Israel, for instance.

[mopsi]

The article you linked is from 2007. Bush did indeed express strong support for offering Ukraine and Georgia a path to NATO membership at the 2008 NATO summit, but he was overruled by other allies[1] who caved in to pressure from Russia, and the topic was taken off the table and remains there.

Putin's former senior advisor Illarionov maintains that the idea of invading Ukraine goes back much further than the 2008 summit. He says that he personally first heard of the idea from Putin during a closed meeting of senior staff in September 2003, when Russia first violated Ukraine's sovereign territory during the Tuzla Island conflict.[2]

[1] Like Germany under Schröder, who was later rewarded with the well-paid position of chairman of the board of Rosneft, Russia's state-controlled oil company.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict