So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.
A week of not hearing anybody actually use the only official language of the country, that Russian would conclude that Ukraine is mostly fake.
Of course that led Russians to underappreciate the willingness of Ukraine citizens to actually fight for it.
Now, yes, of course.
This is Russian propaganda and not even true all Ukraine did was introduce a bill to make all offical communications be provided in Ukrainian.
Nothing stopping people providing it in Russian too.
The bill does a lot more than that, and is quite obnoxious actually.
Can you provide a link all I’ve seen from sources is that it required all offical information to be in Ukrainian.
If they have the social and political awareness of a 12 year-old, perhaps.
Nobody actually talks in Ukrainian around them.
Absolutely not true for (and a very weird thing to say about) Kyiv.
In Odesa/Kharkiv Russian is clearly dominant, but it's not like you'll never hear Ukrainian spoken.
NATO is first and foremost a military alliance setup to contain the western expansion of the USSR. It’s a strategic alliance. It’s defensive in as much as a military alliance can be.
What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.
They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.
Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression.
If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.
Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.
It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.
It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem.
A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.
I am not very keen on having American protectorates part of the EU personally (I think every EU extension from 2004 was a terrible and probably fatal mistake and have serious doubt about the 1995 ones) but I don’t think we are going to agree on that. I view it as one of the reason the current EU is so uninspiring.
Politically I despise the current EU. It has no ambition. Its social and economic policies are misguided and ineffective, its strategic vision sorely lacking, its ability to reform inexistant. It’s entirely possible that I’m projecting my utter disgust for my own country political life on the EU here however.
No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it.
Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically been invaded and dominated by Russia should not be in a alliance that allows themselves to effectively protect themselves from threats like Russia?.
If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east.
This implies that _anyone_ who receives any military aid is a protectorate which imply that states like Russia are a protectorate of Iran
I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having. I understand your view on NATO even if I think it’s wrong and fail to acknowledge the actual effect the alliance has on its members. Still there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty.
> I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having but there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty.
I feel like you are the one being intellectually dishonest. To claim someone is a protectorate because they enter into a defensive alliance for their defence is absurd and does not follow.
No one is entirely reliant on NATO for survival but theres plenty of armies that wouldn't survive an insane from Russia without the extra material.
Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.
NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack.
What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine.
Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO.
Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia.
Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.
They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.
We’re talking about the US here, not Ukraine.
Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe a woman as well as a group of men who you suspect to be absolutely predatory scumbags, you can make predictions about what might happen.
Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe ...
This is just spin and narrative to suggest that the war isn't really Putin's fault.
Mhm.
The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The very comment that you replied to says “The Pentagon should have”… that’s not Ukraine.
Not my problem that you are off-topic.
The topic here, at least where it started to veer way off course from the original thread, is the essentially pro-Kremlin narrative in the GGGP comment and its GP ("The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan"). In this context - US calculations as such are a red herring. What matters here is the clear (and basically rather crass) implication in these comments of core Western responsibility for Russia's military actions.
Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.
I’ll note that you can’t even accuse me of doing anything even remotely concrete. “Seemed to.” “If obliquely.” “Playing footsie.” All just accusations of association. Not a leg to stand on at all.
Take your control round over who is batting for the correct team elsewhere.
> US calculations as such are a red herring.
Then just say that. My God. No one cares.
Probably because you're throwing up such an ink cloud that it's difficult to see what point you're trying to make. Let along for which "team".
> The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO
This is your mock-quote:
> "The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that
Clearly you are mocking this statement on what the Pentagon “should have realized”.
Then I come along and point out that the mock-quote doesn’t apply since The Pentagon is not the victim in this war.
It’s not my fault that you want to find my spooky ulterior motives.
What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine.
Event: Euromaidan
Likely long-term outcomes: ?
There’s not more to it than that. No need to moralize over who did what or who is culpable. This is all about one entity (America) analyzing likely outcomes given a series of events.
No, actually. I do not think it should have been taken for granted that Russia would be stupid enough to do this invasion.
The fact that they were willing to make such insane strategic bludders is a bit of a surprise.
Should have been: given any kind of event.
Considering Us behavior when the Soviet Union installed assets on Cuba, there isn’t a whole lot of ethical ground to be found here. Just Great Power politicians playing stupid games with innocent lives.
If the US had put nukes in Ukraine and pointed them at Russia, and did so before the Crimean invasion, your comparison might be more fair.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
No one in Ukraine believes this narrative. Why do you?
None of this is true, what happened in reality and not in the fever dreams of FSB, GRU and SVR agents is that there where protests when Yanukovych went back on a number of election promises and started aligning himself with Russia instead of joining the EU Like he promised he would.
After that happened he was removed from his seat of power by the parliament and he fled back to his handlers in Russia.