Maybe because the U.S. military isn't bombing the Ukrainian cities right now?
And it wasn't the U.S.A. who sent troops to the Crimea and annexed in 2014?
And it wasn't the U.S.A. who sent troops to the Crimea and annexed in 2014?
Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.
1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence.
2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime.
From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no. And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.
I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.
Of course, Ukraine really wanted to be in NATO, for obvious reasons...
Here's the deal, from my standpoint. Russia is declining in relevance.
* Demographically, they're shrinking and aging.
* Economically, post-Crimea sanctions have blunted any growth.
* Trade / exchange--- petroleum becomes less relevant with time.
* Diplomatically, they're already pariahs from many past misdeeds.
* Culturally/socially, they've stagnated as well.
Clawing for land around them-- through proxy conflicts in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, etc-- offers them a small chance of continued relevance. It's probably not a winning strategy, but it's at least one which could be winning. When you're in a bad situation, if you want to keep playing the game, you need to make the moves that at least could lead to a win.
Euromaidan happened 2013. Putin already lost the Ukraine back then. By annexing the Crimea and sending Russian troops now he is taking the Ukraine back.
I may be mistaken but I think whether the Ukraine was actually joining NATO or not wasn't really relevant in this conflict IMHO.
>If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?
For the couples months there were negotiations. Was there a possibility to avoid the current conflict?
I think unless you're the U.S./Russian diplomat it's impossible to answer this question.
NATO proposed Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO in 2005-2008, in the clear knowledge that this would destabilize the situation.
France, Germany, and others were against this. The proposal began the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJBQikfYyKs
We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.
"F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.
Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy".
Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.
The good news is that at almost 70, he doesn't have eternal life. The bad news is his replacement will probably be a similar sociopath.
Say, by similar vassalization as Belarus has gone through.
Ukraine was too free of a society for that as many of its members did not want that.
I am not a pro-Putin guy, but, if we don't recognize our part in this chaos, then, we're just promoting more of it.