The story about broken NATO promises was invented as an excuse for the war, the same way Hitler had no shortage of excuses for invading Poland. Many top officials of the USSR were still alive when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. Gorbachev, the minister of foreign affairs Shevardnadze, and the minister of defense Yazov all denied the story. In an interview to German ZDF channel, Gorbachev directly called it a myth: https://x.com/Jesuitchild/status/1749887239226617873 Their successors, like Kozyrev, the first post-USSR minister of foreign affairs of Russian Federation, have also called this story a total fabrication. Gorbachev summed it up with: "Had we had an agreement, we would've written it down."
> At least some NATO members (and Zelenskyy himself) want Ukraine to join NATO to this day. This is hardly lukewarm.
This is exactly what I call lukewarm. Even more than 10 years after Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine has still not received even an official invitation to begin ascension negotiations, let alone reached any key milestones of the process. Despite Ukrainians openly begging for it, NATO membership remains a distant dream.
> They want influence over their neighbor, it is true. Why does the EU want to influence Russia's neighbor?
It doesn't. The initiative for more open trade with the EU comes from Ukraine, because judging by the way rest of Eastern Europe opened up trade with the EU, Ukrainians could expect to see their standard of living rise very sharply in a very short time. In a decade, open trade with the EU could easily double or triple the income for most people in Ukraine. How would you feel about getting paid three times as much for the same job?
> How would you feel about Russia making trade deals with Mexico, sponsoring pro-Russia politicians, and selling advanced military gear to them? How would you feel if Mexico was attacking us with cruise missiles supplied and operated by Russia?
If this was preceded by the US treating Mexico the same way Russia has treated Ukraine, then I'd passionately support the Mexican-Russian alliance. If the US poisoned Mexican politicians, claimed that the Mexican people are a made up ethnicity, demanded Mexico to give up Baja California and Sonora, brainwashed Americans every day with genocidal propaganda directed against Mexicans calling for their extermination, and eventually invaded Mexico, razed entire cities from the earth, killed hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, forced millions of them to become refugees, kidnapped children, stole cultural artifacts, and polluted vast areas of Mexico for centuries with unexploded munitions, could you blame Mexico for seeking closer relations with whoever offers them support in withstanding the onslaught?
Russian treatment of Ukraine is best summed up by this pair of photos: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547
This is Ukraine's president. The photos were taken a few months apart, before and after Russians poisoned him. The US treats Mexico better than this and that's why the Mexican-Russian alliance remains a far-fetched fiction and not anything remotely plausible.
It absolutely is rewriting history. Such a promise never happened the soviet leader of the time has admitted this https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...
> No, it hasn't. It was a pressing issue before the most recent invasion, and we did not address it.
It was a total and absolute non issue. NATO membership takes full agreement and everyone including Putin knew that there was very little interest in Ukraine joining NATO. Well very little interest from NATO members at least before 2022, in Ukraine interest skyrocketed after 2014 when Russia invaded.
> At least some NATO members (and Zelenskyy himself) want Ukraine to join NATO to this day.
Right and they should be let in but that is from 2024 not the initial Russian invasion in 2014 or the the start of the full scale invasion in 2022.
> They want influence over their neighbor, it is true. Why does the EU want to influence Russia's neighbor?
It was Ukraine pushing to be part of the EU because they saw how rich Poland was getting. They wanted a rich much less corrupt future and saw the EU as their only path. The EU was at best shrugging about this.
> How would you feel about Russia making trade deals with Mexico, sponsoring pro-Russia politicians
Russia made the dumbest choices, compare Poland's relationship with Ukraine. They also share a sometimes unhappy history but Poland tried to move forward in a positive way while Russia demanded control of Ukraine. As for sponsoring politicians that's not something the EU did its what Russia did
> and selling advanced military gear to them? How would you feel if Mexico was attacking us with cruise missiles supplied and operated by Russia?
After Russia invaded. Before Russia invaded in 2014 Ukraines military was in bad shape and they didn't have much intrest in fighting Russia.
> I know my comment probably sounds one-sided, but all most people ever hear is how it's better for us for Ukraine to not be on Russia's side.
That's because things look pretty clear.
> The Russians have their own interests to look out for, and their interest in Ukraine is more legitimate than ours IMO.
Russia's intrests or Putin's interests? In my opinion trying to revive the empire while increasing authoritarianism at home is wrecking Russia not helping it, Putin might disagree. It hasn't made their security situation better considering the Ukrainians control part of Kursk now and launch drones into Russia occasionally(something they would have no interest in if Russia hadn't invaded).
Americas interests are that a democracatic country is not conquered and that Russia stops trying to conquer its neighbors is a much more legitimate intrest then Russia's intrest in reviving the empire by conquering their neigbors. And of course Poland Estonia Latvia and Lithuania's intrest in not being next
You can't just call any attempt at peace "appeasement" even if it is followed by conflict. You can't realistically call it appeasement if it is not entered into in good faith either. Hearkening back to WW2 terminology is so ironic because the Azov battalion and many high-ranking officers in Ukraine are Nazis to this day. As you may have been aware, the Nazis fought the Russians in Ukraine. I don't know the details of who broke what and when, but I think we can agree that if one party is breaking an agreement then the other party does not have an obligation to continue with the agreement.
>It was a total and absolute non issue. NATO membership takes full agreement and everyone including Putin knew that there was very little interest in Ukraine joining NATO. Well very little interest from NATO members at least before 2022, in Ukraine interest skyrocketed after 2014 when Russia invaded.
It wasn't, and I provided multiple links showing it is a real issue. It's even been discussed this past month. Your link about the Gorbachev thing is interesting, but I don't know the original source for that (and I haven't read the whole thing, sorry if it's in there). You should know, the man is a politician and as such he can lie about anything. He presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union after all. I've read that Putin is not friendly with him so it would not be surprising if he DID lie.
Russia says it invaded in 2014 because it is their impression that the West was influencing Ukraine's politics, and trying to cut off their access to ports in Crimea. They invaded Crimea to secure those ports.
>Right and they should be let in but that is from 2024 not the initial Russian invasion in 2014 or the the start of the full scale invasion in 2022.
I gave you a link from 2022 and a link from 2024.
>It was Ukraine pushing to be part of the EU because they saw how rich Poland was getting. They wanted a rich much less corrupt future and saw the EU as their only path. The EU was at best shrugging about this.
EU, NATO, same thing. I read 21/30 EU countries are in NATO. The ones that aren't are very small. Up to recently Sweden and Finland were not in NATO, but that has changed.
>Russia's intrests or Putin's interests? In my opinion trying to revive the empire while increasing authoritarianism at home is wrecking Russia not helping it, Putin might disagree. It hasn't made their security situation better considering the Ukrainians control part of Kursk now and launch drones into Russia occasionally(something they would have no interest in if Russia hadn't invaded).
I don't think there would have been a push to revive the empire if so many ex-Soviet states were not added to NATO. As I said, the Russians have a strategic interest in keeping missiles as far away as possible. Ukraine is being demolished and sold off now. It's not in a better situation than they would have been if they had tried to avoid the war. I can't say if trying harder to avoid the war would not have put them in a different bad position, but at least there would be no question then. The US will not suffer Russian missiles in Cuba, Mexico, or Canada. Russia will not tolerate certain weapons in the hands of non-neutral countries close to its border either.
>Americas interests are that a democracatic country is not conquered and that Russia stops trying to conquer its neighbors is a much more legitimate intrest then Russia's intrest in reviving the empire by conquering their neigbors. And of course Poland Estonia Latvia and Lithuania's intrest in not being next
You mean the democratic country of Ukraine that has been skipping its elections and banning any opposition parties that want to end the war? Give me a break. Nobody knows if Russia would stop with Ukraine but I believe they would. Russia will not invade Poland because that's going to start WW3.
Nobody is going to fight Russia seriously over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania which have a combined population of less than New York City. Get your mind right.
>That's because things look pretty clear.
It's rarely clear with these kinds of things. This is not one of those rare cases, but I think the facts lean in Russia's favor.
I suspect you live in Ukraine, and that's why you're replying to me and possibly using multiple accounts or sending friends to reply to me. This stuff is very unlikely to convince me, especially the downvoting of my comments. I've been researching this issue since 2022 and I've probably done hundreds of hours of analysis on the subject.
I'm replying to your other comment from your other account below:
>The story about broken NATO promises was invented as an excuse for the war, the same way Hitler had no shortage of excuses for invading Poland.
Can you be any more hysterical?
>This is Ukraine's president. The photos were taken a few months apart, before and after Russians poisoned him. The US treats Mexico better than this and that's why the Mexican-Russian alliance remains a far-fetched fiction and not anything remotely plausible.
That's horrible, but the story does not say the photos were taken a few months apart. Why do you suppose he was poisoned? Could it be because he was too pro-West?
>I recommend you stop.
I consider this brigading as well. I am within my rights to call it like I see it. If some anonymous internet guy is actually offended that another anonymous internet guy is accusing him of a relatively minor thing deep in the bowels of a stale comment section, so be it. Grow up.
Merkel was trying to mke her past actions sound more noble. The truth is that it was far closer to appeasement. The Minsk agreements were not in good faith not just because Russia repeatedly broke both of them (while pretending not to be a party to them of that the so called republics were not Russian puppets) but also because they also broke earlier agreements to respect Ukraine's independence and borders by invading in 2014.
I'm not rewriting anything. This is what has been going on since 2014. You can even go back to the 90s and promises that NATO made that it would not expand to eastern Europe if you really want to get deep on the causes of this war.
>Ukraine's prospect of becoming a member of NATO was completely buried since 2008, and the intention to join NATO was resurrected only after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. To this day, the interest of other members to accept Ukraine into NATO remains lukewarm and no meaningful progress has been made in this direction.
No, it hasn't. It was a pressing issue before the most recent invasion, and we did not address it. Look at these:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/14/biden-official-... -- The war was at least partly instigated by our refusal to promise to keep Ukraine neutral and out of NATO.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-disappointed-merkels-words-... -- The Minsk Accords were not a good-faith effort to avoid war, but a stalling tactic.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/10/22/give-ukraine-a... -- At least some NATO members (and Zelenskyy himself) want Ukraine to join NATO to this day. This is hardly lukewarm. We say that we won't let them until the war is over, but we also said we wouldn't do a lot of things like sending F-16s and certain other equipment there.
>The war started because Russia couldn't stomach that Ukraine was on the verge of signing a major trade deal with the EU that would've opened up the EU market for Ukraine, and Russia, facing its vaning influence over Ukraine, decided to invade and subjugate Ukrainians through violence, as it had nothing else to offer.
They want influence over their neighbor, it is true. Why does the EU want to influence Russia's neighbor? How would you feel about Russia making trade deals with Mexico, sponsoring pro-Russia politicians, and selling advanced military gear to them? How would you feel if Mexico was attacking us with cruise missiles supplied and operated by Russia?
I know my comment probably sounds one-sided, but all most people ever hear is how it's better for us for Ukraine to not be on Russia's side. The Russians have their own interests to look out for, and their interest in Ukraine is more legitimate than ours IMO.