Russia is the only destabilizer of security in the region
Imagine being a grown ass adult and believing that.
Did Ukrainians invade themselves then?
Many western experts have explained in great detail how the west provoked the conflict. Go read up on that. Here are a few links to help you get started.
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
As Russia’s war of agression drags on
Ah yes, I really missed NAFO viewpoints here.
I would like to thank Vladimir Putin for runing Russia and dragging Russia into an unwinnable war. Thank you Mr Putin, you have sabotaged Russia better than anyone else could. Your strategy will be mocked in military schools and be taught as “The blunder to not do” for decades.
Russia will lose this war and repay everything to Ukraine even if it takes a hundred years.
Isn’t it more a Russian war against Ukraine than a crisis?
It’s a proxy war between US and Russia as the former US ambassador to Finland openly states.
… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
A proxy war by definition has both parties non active and letting others fight for them. So this is no proxy war from the Russian side, they are bleeding heavily. NATO on the other side is perhaps not very upset that Ukrainian blood stops the expansionist dreams of Russia with NATO gear. But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.
A proxy war by definition has both parties non active and letting others fight for them. So this is no proxy war from the Russian side
It’s a proxy war by NATO against Russia, and yes this war is costing Russia lives. However, it’s becoming clear that this war is starting to cost the west quite a bit as well. The economy in Europe is suffering quite a bit right now, and the cost of living continues to climb which is leading to a lot of political unrest.
But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia tried Ukraine and the west to respect the Minsk agreements for nearly a decade. Now western leaders openly admit that they never intended to, and this was all a ploy to arm Ukraine for the coming conflict.
And of course, RAND published a whole study on extending Russia where it suggests precisely the kind of conflict that we’re seeing https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Furthermore, plenty of western experts have been warning about NATO expansion for decades. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.
Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.
Interesting statement of fact. Let’s check it.
- Joe Biden: Lawyer, in politics since the age of 27
- Kamela Harris: in public service and politics directly after law school
- Ron DeSantis: Law school, millitary, poltician
- Ursula von der Leyen: LSE, housewife, politician
- Charles Michel: Member of parliament at age 23
- Olaf Scholz: Lawyer, in national politics since 1998
- Justin Trudeau: Son ;-) , teacher, non profit, politician
- Emmanuel Macron: public servant, banker (5 years), public service and politician
- Anthony Albanese: politics after uni
- Giorgia Meloni; politics after uni
A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.
My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.
It’s a proxy war by NATO against Russia, and yes this war is costing Russia lives. However, it’s becoming clear that this war is starting to cost the west quite a bit as well. The economy in Europe is suffering quite a bit right now, and the cost of living continues to climb which is leading to a lot of political unrest.
It’s a war by Russia against Ukraine, where Ukraine gets help from NATO and other countries. And of course it’s costly, but you are getting off course. Which seems to be systemic to your argumentation.
But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia tried Ukraine and the west to respect the Minsk agreements for nearly a decade. Now western leaders openly admit that they never intended to, and this was all a ploy to arm Ukraine for the coming conflict.
Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.
In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.
Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.
I’ll ignore the rest about NATO and warnings and so on. You are just flooding the zone because you want to distract from the fact that you are defending the invasion of an independent country by Russia.
Right, that’s why every nation in the region wants to join NATO. In contrast to the title, NATO is perceived as a direly needed guarantee for security amidst the continuous invasions by Russia against its neighbors.
Totally agree. Would be interesting if people are conscious it’s all about small high power sectors interests.
