The fact that Putin is using Ukraine's possibly joining NATO as an excuse to invade does not mean he would not have invaded anyway. It's entirely likely he would have seen that as a further sign of weakness and simply found another excuse. So no, I don't agree that what you said is true and I don't understand how you can be so sure of it.
Putin is not unaware that Russia will come out of this bloody and bruised and nearly broken (potentially completely) and he's not irrational either.
No, you quite obviously don't.
It's hard to see how those activities could be compatible with NATO membership. It would simply have provided Russia with security guarantees while providing cover for it to cause as much trouble as it wanted.
But ok, lets imaging you are right. So you are saying that, it is NATO fault that Russian invades Ukraine simply because they didn't take Russia into NATO? Right?
Of course, the formal application doesn't exist, since countries of that size and importance usually don't apply officially to something unless they already have an agreement that it's just a formality. They would just look silly if the applied and got rejection.
NATO is made to promote democratic values, Putin runs a dictatorship, how does that work?
In a world where Russia also sought to promote free democracies and started with itself, then Russia being in NATO would make sense.
Central Asian Islamic extremists?
> NATO is made to promote democratic values, Putin runs a dictatorship, how does that work?
Russia wasn't clearly a dictatorship when it was admitted to the Partnership for Peace, or when Putin wanted direct admission to NATO without the usual accession process, though, yeah, it is now.
Someone who was unreasonably optimistic might think NATO membership would have mellowed Putin rather than just letting him jam up the alliances consensus-based processes.
Even if you're right, Eastern European countries would be stupid to put their trust in Russian dictators staying benevolent. They were smart and joined NATO.
Since you have a history of breaking the site guidelines, I was going to ban you for this post, but decided not to because emotions and pressure are so high right now. Please don't break the guidelines again, though.
Triggered? Is this the kind of discussion we want here on HN?
But yes, if you forget what happened from 1939 to 1943, you can look in horror how evil Soviet Union invades Germany. Or you, an example closer to you, you forget Pearl Harbor and look now USA invades Japan and kill innocent Japanese soldiers and civilians.
> Russia got what it wanted. A war.
I don't know if Russia wanted a war. But for the moment, just take a break and take a look who profits and who is a loser of this war.
The biggest loser is the people of Ukraine, followed by the people of Russia. The second-biggest loser is the EU. The winner is clearly the USA and its military and oil industry, followed by the China, which will profit from the trade with both sides.
Now, that we know who benefits from the war, let's think about again who really wanted the war.
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing.
> Just trying to point that it's not black and white,
Exactly. That's called relativism or whataboutism, and is a typical tactic in the defence of evil.
> There are many subltleties to discuss.
Only if one is trying to defend evil by focusing on irrelevant "subtleties" so as to distract from the actual issue.
> But yes, if you forget what happened from 1939
You mean when the Soviet Union unprovokedly invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland?
> to 1943, you can look in horror how evil Soviet Union invades Germany.
Just because the Nazis were even better than Russia at being evil doesn't make Russia good.