I think this framing is a little strange. Ukraine was not joining NATO, and if it had been that seems quite reasonable to expect given that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014

As I said in another comment, the Bucharest summit 2008 started paving the way towards a NATO membership. Until 2014 under Yanukovych Ukraine itself suspended its membership ambitions, in 2014 it continued seeking membership. The Russian response followed and prevented a membership due to Ukraine being in an active conflict and this bought Russian time to either find a diplomatic solution or prepare the invasion.

Taking Crimea and supporting separatists was more than enough to guarantee Ukraine could not join NATO though.

That is a good point, I never thought deeply about that. As far as I know, Ukraine NATO relationships still progressed even after 2014. So even though an actual membership was not possible for essentially technical reasons, the intention was still there and progress was arguably made. So maybe the situation was not judged as satisfactory, no official membership but a defacto membership in the making. Other contributing reasons like resources including water for Crimea.

I agree that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but that isn't the same thing as that aim being likely to be realised. Putin's calculus is his own to know and I don't think his claims about why he does things can be taken at face value

Why would he lie? And if he lies, what would the alternative reasons be and why would he not want to spell them out?

> what would the alternative reasons be and why would he not want to spell them out?

He has spelled it out before--he believes that Ukrainians are really Russians, and therefore Ukraine should not exist as a separate country because why divide a nation in two.

I had this discussion a few days ago and I read the entire essay Putin wrote - if this is the best evidence for the reuniting a nation explanation, then I am not convinced at all. Compared to decades of opposition against NATO expansion this is laughable evidence. Go, read it [1] if you have not.

[1] http://www.en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182

Is this a serious question? Politicians lie all the time! Why? To get support, or to minimize resistance. And Putin manipulates and lies very well.

Let's take that at face value "Ukraine becoming a NATO member". How does a war stop them from becoming a NATO member? Russia can not occupy Ukraine - they don't have the manpower for that.

What's the end game? What's the goals of the war? How does an invasion, that has to end at some point, stop Ukraine from joining NATO?

Even if Ukraine looses, Russia has no ability to force them to do anything. Russia wins - and then what?

Easiest way, you make them sign an agreement during peace negotiations. Maybe even just demonstrating that you are serious and what the consequences are might act as a deterant for at least some time. Install a pro Russian government.

You are right, nothing will guarantee that they never become a NATO member, but for some time is a plausible goal. Even just being in an active conflict prevents a NATO membership unless the rules are changed which is what Crimea and eastern Ukraine achieved since 2014.

Russia has a 500 year long uninterrupted track record of invading and occupying its neighbors. Now, you might say that this is an unfair comparison because hundreds of years ago everyone was doing that, and okay, yes! But the last time Russia bit off a piece of one of its neighbors was 2014! Russia acts like a 19th century imperialist in the year 2022! The last time Russia occupied a foreign territory and deported its inhabitants to Siberia was this year! And they’ve done it every place they’ve occupied in the 21st century! I mean, it’s actually incredible.

Saying that this particular instance of territorial expansion has a self-defense motivation is, I think, implausible given the history.

It's a bit more complicated than that because Ukraine looked into joining NATO in the early 00s, reversed course and was (at least officially) neutral until 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas. December 2014 they restarted plans to join NATO.

Realistically, Ukraine was left with the choice of slowly losing territory to Russia, or joining NATO.

The events in and around 2014 are really important. Did Ukraine revive its NATO membership ambitions because of Russian actions or did Russia act in response to new NATO membership ambitions?

When I first researched this after the invasion started, I arrived at Russia reacting but I am open to being proven wrong.

You can't just accept a liar's rationalizations at face value.

Ukraine was absolutely not becoming a NATO member. Before Februrary, nobody considered that realistic possibility for decades, at least.

Ironically, thanks to Putin's war, Ukrainian NATO membership is starting to look more plausible (and Swedish/Finnish membership is virtually assured).

> (and Swedish/Finnish membership is virtually assured).

I believe Swedish/Finnish membership has been officially accepted by NATO. All that remains is collecting the official ratifications from the rest of NATO. (Currently, 8 of the 30 member states have yet to ratify it.)

See my other comments addressing your point. And I of course agree, to some extent this backfired. But I am not sure that Russia would not still consider this a win overall. Not all neighbors are equal if you take things like geography into account, so I would not rule out the possibility that Sweden and Finnland were factored in.

I agree that Ukraine was not going to join NATO in March 2022 ; however, it can completely be assumed that the window of "attacking Ukraine before it joins NATO" was only going to narrow.

And, given the importance of Russian oil and gas in the post-covid recovery period, the predictable reduction in nuclear capacity in France and Germany, the plausible lack of support from EU population and German industry for a cold winter, Putin's aging, etc... It might just be that the timing felt "as good as it will ever be".

Also, being on the "initiative" side gives your more positive outcomes. Best case was a flash invasion of Kiyv with public support. Next best case, a flash invasion without public support. That didn't pan out, but their next option is not terrible : grab as much territory as possible in Spring and Summer, then... Wait it out. General Winter will give Russia a pretty nice seat at the négociation table when EU citizens finally bail out.

Now, it's possible that we europeans stand the cold (or maybe, FSM willing, that winter is _not_ cold), that US weapons work, and that Putin contends with "I keep Crimea and some water, you join NATO, Dombass stays neutral." Sadly, that looks like the "best" plausible outcome to me - but who knows...

I still think Putin getting bumped off is a plausible outcome - either by his own FSB, elements of the Russian military, angry oil oligarchs or Ukrainian partisans with or without the help of the CIA and friends.

Whether that will count as a good outcome really depends on what follows: chaos and civil war could be terrible; a short caretaker government followed by the election of Alexei Navalny might be the best possible result.

Putin is certainly far from the ideal leader but it is probably safe to say things could also be much worse. Leadership change in a country like Russia with so many nukes is always a bit frightening. You do not even have to look at Russia, just look at the end of Trump's presidency. I think the only thing that is certain is that interesting times are ahead.