Thanks, I will check it out.

What I also don't understand is that I'm being downvoted just for asking a sincere question. What am I doing wrong?

The problem is it's a point widely pushed by Russian propagandists.

True or not, earnest or not in inquiry, people will reflexively judge it all the same.

Well if you are in war with a country, you should at least try to understanding their perspective from their viewpoint to understand their motivations. If you want to prevent more conflict at least..

And I rarely see this topic being discussed. Why is that a taboo? That's supicious

I think it's because the US did sort of promise to block expansion, but then changed its mind and in now in hindsight it doesn't seem like they managed it very well but don't want to look bad.

Ultimately it's the weakest justification to allow Russia to do what it was always going to do anyway. There's not much to really discuss here unless you thought Russia was a credible place in the last 20 years.

That sounds like a prejudgment. You say Russia would have done this regardless of NATO's actions, but you don't know that. And you're downplaying the importance of NATO's actions and it's influence on Russia's actions.

Russia already shared borders with NATO.

The truth of the matter from Ukraine's perspective is that this never would have happened if Ukraine was a NATO member.

NATO hasn't moved aggressively on Russia.

The motivations for Russia and it's neighbours for their opinions on joining NATO are the same. Russia doesn't invade NATO members. That's why Russia's neighbours want to join and why Russia doesn't want them to.

The context is that Russia kept expanding for 13 years under the same dictator, and then this time is the straw that broke the camel's back. The trust was broken several times.

I don't really care to understand the mindset of a dictator. They want power, resources,or reputation out of it. There's not a lot of justified reasons to lead an assault that will cost millions of your citizen's lives.

I agree we shouldn't take the mindset of a dictator seriously, but we should take the threat of a superpower seriously. And we should show respect to a superpower as long as it's a superpower, because getting into conflict with a superpower can cause WW3.

I don't mean with that that I fully agree with their standpoint, but that we shouldn't fuck too much with them, because they might fuck with us.

The only part of you post that can be steelmanned into what can be considered an argument is "NATO expansion". And that argument falls apart if you actually think and explore it for like 15 minutes. Like, what is NATO and its purpose, how does "expansion" actually work in terms of process, what events took place on the continent between 90s and new NATO members joining, what else could have compelled parties to go through the process and how durable that would be?

And then the rest of your "question" is straight up factually false.

Well if it's so clear to you, why can't you give a straight up argument? People always say things like "explore it for 15 minutes" or "think about it" or whatever. But I think people are just repeating what other people say. And yeah if everyone's opinion is like this, and you explore it for 15 minutes, and you're the kind of person that repeats what everybody says, then I can understand. But then you can't explain why you actually have that opinion.

Eastern Europe rushed towards NATO as soon as the Russian-controlled Eastern Bloc dictatorships crumbled, to secure themselves from falling prey to Russia ever again. Existing NATO members were for a long time very lukewarm about the idea of accepting new members.

The US did not push or expand NATO onto anyone, but Eastern Europe did everything they could to pull NATO towards them to gain additional security against the very same Russia that had just reluctantly agreed to the dismantlement of their dictatorships and removal of their armies from Eastern Europe.

Are you not aware that the Russian-run communist dictatorships were not voluntary, but forced upon Eastern Europe? That's the key to understanding everything.

the problem is that simply asking the question plays into the hands of Putin.

In war, the objective is to get the other party to stop fighting. Either by destroying his means, or by destroying his will. If you can get enough people to believe that a war cannot be won, or that it is not just, then they will stop. And you have won. See Psychological warfare [1]

This is why Putin is menacing with nuclear weapons, even if he knows that he cannot use them. This is why Putin is making statements about Ukraine being a fascist nazi state, that he just had to invade for the good of the planet. This is why reliable / true statistics about macro-economics and battlefield victims have become state secrets.

Every time someone naively, but sincerely, enters in the reasoning of Putin, the public debate is shifted a little bit to his advantage. This is what is referred to as a Useful Idiot [2]. And due to Brandolini's Law, otherwise known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle [3] it takes time for people to be educated.

So people get frustrated with having to explain every time. So they just downvoted you. I guess.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

So what is your argument, that we should go on fully with the war and send more soldiers to the front? Because we don't want to make any concession with Russia? Because we don't want to sympathize at least a little bit because that would make us "weak"? So we should go on and risk WW3?

No.

My reply was just based on your question, the point being that your question originated in Russian propaganda. That it was based on dishonest reasoning by Putin. And that asking the question was helping Putin. Read a history book: anyone can give reasonable sounding justifications for invading a country. At the very least leaders need support for their wars, so nobody lets loose the dogs of war, saying "yeah I just want their stuff". In geopolitics, the truth is not always in the middle.

But if you're now asking me my personal opinion, should we "continue the war", then, yes I think we should continue to enable Ukraine to defend itself. So if Ukraine wants to send more soldiers to the front, to defend their nation, then yes we should support them. Note: that does not automatically mean sending American or European soldiers, but that was never on the table.

We should continue to support them because we engaged ourselves to support Ukraine in the 90's, when we forced them to hand over their nukes to Russia.

We should continue the war because as both recent and less recent history has borne out, allowing Russia to perform a landgrab will give the wrong ideas to other countries, ultimately resulting in geopolitical instability everywhere.

We should continue to allow Ukraine to defend itself because demonstrably, it is effective.

I have kids, and do not want WW3. But if after losing hundreds of thousands of men, during a three year war, Putin has not started a nuclear war; do you really think he will start one now? If anything, supporting Ukraine will prevent future conflict.

All of this is obvious for anyone who has performed even a cursory study of history. Which probably explains why you were downvoted.

Why is this Russian propaganda? The agreement was not official, but it did certainly seem to have happened. If you open up history books you should also understand that.

I believe I have answered that above.

In fact I have read the history books (have you?). Yes it happened. Many things were said in fact during the negotiation. That generally happens during negotiations whilst people are trying to find a solution.

During scores of negotiations, over a period of months if not years, at one instance the phrase was uttered. Then it was retracted. It was never restated. It was not in the final agreement.

Does it mean that anything the Russians said at some point in time during the negotiations, even if it was retracted afterwards, should apply?

If you were negotiating a contract, do you think that sort of reasoning would fly? If so I have a bridge to sell you.

This is why it is propaganda. Because it is self-serving and disingenuous.

Are you sure that your original question was a sincere question?

"We" (americans) aren't doing anything to help, and are in fact withdrawing support. "We" honestly don't have much say in how the ones who actually fought against our supposed enemies should feel (to reverse a recent quote). Trump is kissing the ring so it's very clear we're already making consessions.

>So we should go on and risk WW3?

Well this is part of why your top comment was unpopular. Ukraine is not going to start WW3. Our inaction only accellerates the possibility since this was already winding down.

As others said, you are repeating Russian talking points. Blaming the one attacked for causing a mass scale war instead of the agressors or the spposed "allies" deciding to betray them and help the enemy.

> "We" (americans) aren't doing anything to help, and are in fact withdrawing support.

How can America not do anything and withdraw support at the same time?

> Ukraine is not going to start WW3.

Yes Ukraine is not going to start it, but if the countries on Ukraine's side don't show any respect to Russia it might.

You argue for unquestionable warmongering? Are you sure it's a good idea? What can possibly go wrong? What if it turns against you?

I never said that no questions should be asked. And there is indeed a risk to standing up against agression. This is why it is very important to manage escalation risks, and the various American and European administrations so far have taken great care. For example by not supplying strategic weapons, and by disallowing strikes on certain Russian targets.

Also, note that there is also a risk of not standing up to agression. The price of doing nothing is not zero.

All I said was that one should take care not to be instrumentalised by unwittingly propagating false propagandist narratives. I think we can agree on that?

I don't completely get the conclusion of this video. They say that because Russia messed with the 2016 elections, they pressured the US to send weapons to Ukraine, and that that gave Russia a valid reason to start the war?

my understanding of the video, and after having read the historical book "Not One Inch" by ME Sarotte [1] is that during the numerous meetings between the US and the USSR, over several years, at one (1) time George Baker said the famous "Not One Inch" (which I highly recommend)

Not only was this subsequently retracted, but it was never repeated, and it was not in any of the treaty texts. Russia had essentially lost the cold war, was so near to collapse that it needed billions of dollars from it's previous enemies, and so never asked for any sort of confirmation because they knew they wouldn't get it.

It's a bit like, calling the AT&T hotline 20 times, and when during one conversation the agent tells you by mistake that you can have free internet for life (without written confirmation), upon which you then loudly complain that AT&T is in breach of contract.

As the book and the video also remind people, it's not the US that extended NATO. It's the various countries that spent 40 years behind the iron curtain, that were so eager to join NATO that they essentially forced their way into NATO, against the wishes of the US. And given the various Russian invasions the last 10-15 years, history has more than validated them.

The west tried for years and years to accommodate Russia, and only gave weapons to Ukraine in 2016 because ... in 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine? Let's not forget that in the 90's, Ukraine was the third biggest nuclear power, and gave away it's nuclear weapons to Russia at the behest of the rest of the world (who were afraid of nuclear escalation), but only in return from security guarantees, from Europe, the US and even Russia. This deal was very much not at the initiative of Ukraine.

Supporting Ukraine is not a moral issue. It's a contractual issue. We wanted to reduce nuclear proliferation 35 years ago, and -at the time- were willing to pay the price. It's time to make good on that promise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_One_Inch