Except that's not what happened. In you know, actual, physical reality.
It's just what the aggressor told you, in its propaganda.
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-ques...
And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it was. But they took extra special care to double down on the "pushing" part, and dial it up a notch, to "shoving [it] its borders", which is unmistakably an intentional use of emotionally manipulative language.
Which to my ears indicates we have no reason to concern ourselves with whatever else they might have to say.
And which is the precise moment at which what they did say starts to sound like, you know, propaganda.
As to what you're saying.
Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines"
Except there was no concrete "push" in Ukraine's case.
And when you're completely cornered on one line of disinformation, not just maybe but sure enough -- somebody will chime in with another.
The coup/puppet narrative in relation to these events is simply bogus. You can do your homework on it if you want, or not. I don't particularly care.
Also Poroshenko wasn't in any way installed or a puppet, he was elected by Ukranians in an election that was fair and free followed by another fair and free election which he lost in a landslide. That's democracy.
Poroshenko may have not been the best leader but he was tons better then Yanukovych and it was pretty hard to run Ukraine even before Russia invaded.
Ivan Katchanovski is a Ukrainian-born Canadian political scientist who is definitely not a Russian sympathizer. He has studied the history of the Maidan uprising and argues convincingly (IMO) for this conclusion.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266855828_The_Snipe...
He also has a very interesting podcast with Robert Wright where he discusses this, among other issues related to the Ukraine war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rvx_M3_Yi0
I also recommend following his twitter account if you're interested in a fairly neutral perspective on the Ukraine war: https://x.com/I_Katchanovski
https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/panorama/archiv/2014/...
It uses the word "coup", but then says that the majority of the protesters demonstrated for a free Ukraine and were against the corruption of Yanukovich.
The rest of the article is about the Swoboda party, which is ultranationalist and had good contacts to the German NPD. The NPD is a fringe party without any substantial numbers of voters that is classified as ultra right wing.
It then mentions a Neonazi (their words) called Jarosch and his party "Right Sector". It goes on to say that the "Right Sector" was instrumental in ousting the old regime physically on the barricades.
It says that the members then established new security forces that replaced the police.
What does the BBC say?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
The same U.S. that complains about election interference in Romania is picking candidates in Ukraine after the revolution.
As is Svoboda, these days.
Mainstream Western press like the Guardian and CNBC, both of which are fiercely pro-Ukraine now. In 2014, before the Crimea invasion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukrain...
Nato's eastward expansion was halted by the Georgian war of 2008 and Yanukovych's later election on a platform of non-alignment. But any doubt that the EU's effort to woo Ukraine is closely connected with western military strategy was dispelled today by Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared that the abortive pact with Ukraine would have been "a major boost to Euro-Atlantic security".
Notice that the Guardian's mention of "fascists" is also Russian propaganda now (given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist" I do not attach too much value to that part, but it is there.)
Before the 2022 invasion, from CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-re...
President Biden didn’t accept Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” on Ukraine during their high-stakes video call that came as Russia’s military builds its presence on the Ukrainian border.
Namely, that means the U.S. isn’t accepting Putin’s demand that Ukraine be denied entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is the world’s most powerful military alliance.
> Why is that?
Because they are standard mainstream sources. You seem to think that only a concrete and signed membership plan is a red line, whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines.
I agree by the way that the invasions by Russia are horrible, but please let's not rewrite history.
It's the only one that the commenter was referring to.
Whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines.
Except you're shifting goal posts. The "red lines" referred to by the CNBC are entirely different (and separated by 13 years) from those referred to by the previous commenter. And anyway that's just CNBC's misreading of the events. Suffice it to say there was a lot more to Putin's noises at the time. More specifically, by that point the West did not (as you are strongly implying) have the option of deterring the invasion by simply complying with some specific, reasonable request Putin was making.
And then we have this:
given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist"
There is no such "propensity" within Western media. Or any other significant tendency. This is just complete nonsense.
Another day, another throwaway account with a throwaway argument.
Another day, another one of the 1000,000 Ukranian males in Western Europe evading military service while lecturing Westerners?
That's why the only years that matter (in terms of the "Ukraine/NATO caused it all" hypothesis) are 2008-2014.
Once Russia's regime did chose to invade, any moral capital it may have had in regard to the issue was instantly extinguished.
This is weird thing with anyone saying "NATO FAULT NATO FAULT", NATO explicitly DIDN'T want the eastern European countries to join, it was the eastern Europeans who begged and begged to be let in, including Ukraine and the west rejected them.
And even IF this was the case somehow that NATO pushed themselves into these countries:
1. Why did Russia give the thumbs up for these countries to join?
2. Why did Russia try and attempt to join NATO at one point
All of this by the way happened with Putin in charge, so unless we all believe in the dead-putin theory something doesn't add up here with the framing of "NATO FAULT".
>It's not like everybody from real-politic scholars to the most experienced of foreign affairs like Kissinger explicitly said it was a bad idea, and that this will be the result!
So you're saying that real-politik experts believe if Ukraine had joined back in say 2008 they today would've been invaded by Russia? Since it's in 2022 not 2008 they got full-blown invasion after having having been trying to be neutral and DESPITE that Russia still kept meddling in their affairs as if it was Belarus, leading up to 2014 crisis.
I would love to know how exactly Russia would be able to pull that off against the full NATO military force.
Such crazy talk!
Who would have ever thought that pushing a cold-war coalition eastwards towards an ex-superpower, including shoving it in its very borders, which it has long declared a "red line", would ever cause an invasion?
It's not like everybody from real-politic scholars to the most experienced of foreign affairs like Kissinger explicitly said it was a bad idea, and that this will be the result!