There have been multiple active wars in like 1/4 of the world the whole time since ww2 and all the time before that. The only thing different is that Ukraine is closer to EU than the rest of the countries.
I really hope that Ukraine won't go down like Czechnya but I fear in the end, Putin only knows one trick.
Lebensraum really scares people. Religious conflict are concerning, but the French wasn't directly worried that the UK might go after them next once the Northern Ireland situation got settled.
Now it's close to home, happening to people like us. Now it's a genuine concern and those who are close enough in Europe are forced to process those worries, go through them, make scenarios, visualize the loss because it may be their loss soon.
When Russia was bombing the hell out of Syria very few people felt the visceral hate or fear they feel now. And I bet far fewer people remember that this is even more recent than the Crimean invasion and that they've kept bombing Syria well into 2021. When Russia was invading Georgia we just watched the news and shook our heads. Same when Russia and Turkey were fighting their proxy wars in the Caucasus, Western and Central Asia. All too far from us to care.
It was all about thoughts and prayers until the bombs hit close to home.
Maybe USA didn't care. I remember, as a child, my Polish parents being glued to the TV, watching the situation unfold in Chechnya.
As far as I know, my country accepted quite a few Chechen refugees. Dhokhar Dudayev was recognised as a hero in Poland. We named a landmark after him.
I don't think Sreberenica is forgotten or was ignored in Europe. The West seems to be slow to wake up -- and Putin got high on his sequence of "successful" wars. I don't want to deny that hypocrisy exists here, but it doesn't justify Putins crimes anywhere.
The diplomatic relationships since Russia Federation's birth have been problematic and idiosyncratic. Russian people wanted recognition of their value. West decided to not follow similar approach with other past enemies countries -- and this was due to the cold war. Somehow Russia's "Monroe" doctrine is surprising now to us, despite all the warnings by political science and diplomats since 2014. (at least/off the top of my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=2893s) And our own similar reactions and actions.
It is known that Putin made multiple attempts to establish partnerships and ensure Russia was part of the West. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s... I would say all sides need to take a breather and attempt an honest discussion among equals -- if it's not too late.
For example, while Pozner insists that Russia did nothing wrong during the 90s, he's conveniently forgetting to mention the Chechen Wars. Which wasn't a conflict the west was a party in, but it wouldn't exactly be fair to say Russia was a peace-loving nation during that time.
Also while he says there's plenty of proof of Putin trying to join NATO or the EU, I can only find proof of half-hearted attempts to join NATO, it doesn't seem he was very serious about any of it. Back in 2009 the Russian delegation to NATO, while open to the suggestion of joining NATO, also said "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power." [2] Those aren't the kind of things you say when you're actively trying to join NATO.
In any case, I agree that the west should've done more to ensure democracy in the early Russian Federation was a success. And while the Wolfowitz Doctrine was widely condemned and was heavily changed it definitely cemented belief in Russia that the west was only interested in isolating it.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/redfiles/prop/deep/interv/p_int_vladimir... [2] https://euobserver.com/news/27890
Here is the first google result from before 2008 [1]. Anyone paying attention in the 90s will recall when Russia was signalling a renewed interest in joining NATO.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/p...
I'm surprised that some people still haven't learned that his words don't mean anything.
I remember this interview; even at the time it came across as trolling. Key words: "unexpected gesture", "would consider", "treat as equal partner".
For reference, "treat as equal partner" is the putinspeak for "recognize our right to control half of the continent".
No wonder nobody took him seriously.
Would you think Russia and the rest of Europe be a good match? How many values do they share? Not many. Russia's actions have proven not letting them in NATO was an extremely good decision. I would not want to side with a country like that.
"Make up your own mind!" ( = Use some of the search terms I've fed you to Google for similar shit and hopefully take it for "independent science") is what the anti-vaccine trolls say, too.
And the very first teaser quote from that Guardian article:
> "George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’"
Yeah, that attitude pretty conclusively shows why Russia doesn't belong in a mutual-defense alliance of countries big and small.
This is probably two magnitudes worse concerning the risk for further spread.
The pretense is not what is interesting but the sheer size of the endeavour.
I can't think of another country of any kind, much less a major power, overtly invoking the whole set since Hitler, but if it's so common, please list the examples you are thinking of.
Maybe they thought there would be a repetition of the rather clean Krim expedition.
Maybe the shadow elite are against the war.
I don't know.
This is not comparable to how one gets elected to an upper house in most countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_council_of_russia#E...
These are rubber-stamping yes-men of a single party state, obedience is the only thing required, thinking is not involved.
Mujahideens volunteering in Bosnia and creating a muslim army and committing numerous crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen
Croatian army ethnically cleansing croatian territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm
Kosovo Albanian Liberation Army which was designated as terrorist organization by the US, but that conveniently changed before NATO bombing of Yugoslavia committing their share of crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army
Than there is also NATO bombing destroying numerous civilian targets and killing civilians on all sides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_during_Ope...
etc etc.
So many atrocities, where one is too many. I long for the day where each side will punish all their vile murderers and crime doers and not as it is often done, protect them, excuse them, or even celebrate them after the wars. Or even better, when ordinary people would not fall for the propaganda of their countries and stop wars from even happening.
I also find it kind of hypocritical (but isn't that to be expected in war politics) of the European NATO members that they were completely fine with breaking up Yugoslavia, arming separatist movements, taking sides in a civil war and bombarding a sovereign country, and then ending it up with another war and a three month (THREE MONTHS) constant bombing of a sovereign country with the use of weapons with depleted uranium. This led to some Italian army members receiving hefty compensations from Italy after they were diagnosed with cancer. I talked with some of them, this is actually how I found out about the subject. In the end that money is worthless when you know that you have cancer. And what I am most appalled by is the fact that my generation knows nothing about this, and that the people that suffered the bombs cannot do anything about it. They live with the traumas from the bombardment and with the fear that them or their children will one day get cancer.
You don't "bomb a country" with depleted uranium. That's used for its high density, which gives a lot of kinetic energy to conventional ammunition made out of it: Armour-penetrating shots. Anti-tank ammo, not bombs.
Are you saying Ukraine is no big deal and anyone complaining about it should shut up, or are you saying it's a shame that people didn't take the other wars more seriously?
Either way, you should be more specific in your complaint so people can disagree or not, without having to guess what you mean and inadvertantly assume you're pro-invasion and trying to undermine the global response to it.
Perhaps OP's feeling is that the large blocks had some sort of non aggresion deal, and step by step the rest of the world is going to be part of such non aggression terms as soon as they join other alliances or make their own economic dependencies. That was the hope for many.
That's one (big) factor, but Putin's casual mention that nuclear weapons were on the table if anyone got in his way was also a good way to get everyone's attention.
Since Yalta-Potsdam conferences world doesn't recognize the right of conquest.
Since Peace of Westphalia historical grounds for aggression were not valid.
In his speech Putin dived directly to Rus, denying centuries of political development.
That is the main reason Russia is dangerous to everyone: not because of an attack on Ukraine, but because of dismantling the current world order.
WW3 is not "Russia against the world". WW3 is every country seeing the possibility of quietly entering the fry and getting out in a better position.
Putlin. Or Putler.
It's an unpopular fact but it's still true.
Putin isnt Hitler. He's a monster hes just not that specific monster.
Do you really believe this would end at Ukraine?
I agree. He wants to be like Stalin. He wants to be greater than Stalin.
Finland went to war over it, took huge losses but managed to fight back well enough to stay independent even though some territory was lost.
Countries that gave in to these demands without much resistance to avoid huge bloodshed were occupied shortly and lost their independence for 50 years. Multiple rounds of deportation to siberia and executions of anyone who had military, police or government background were done over the next years so in the end it's not clear if the loss of life was any smaller for these countries if it would have been if they fought back.
So in hindsight it seems better choice was to fight back and have a chance of freedom.
PS. it's not single demand at all, you should read more of Putins speeches and writings, especially those meant for Russian audiences. For example the one televised on 21.02.2022 where he goes on and on about some mystical "west" that has tried to destroy the russian for over a century and how ukraine has no right to exist anyway etc. That NATO talk is mostly for western audiences, internally the message seems to be more about re-establishing the russian empire (which he seems to think is god given right) and talk about superiority of the russian civilization (ruskiy mir). So everything indeed sounds eerily similar to sittuation and delusions that led to WW2.
It's a bullying tactic and infringes on a country's sovereignty.
I dont want Ukraine to be pro Russian but I dont want Kyiv to be shelled more. I dont want a nuclear war more.
It absolutely is a bullying tactic, but it's also the desperate act of a country that is trying to protect the integrity of its most exposed border from an explicitly hostile power (NATO).
No it’s not. Not if being at peace means being subjugated by a despot.
You’re a fool.
I have friends and family who are suffering because of this. I dont use my words lightly.
Hearing westerners cheerlead for this war is painful, most especially when it could have been prevented just by saying NATO ends at the western Ukrainian border.
It does though. Latest Putin demands involve complete demilitarization of Ukraine. For what purpose? Invading it better afterwards?
Sweden and Finland do not pose such a threat. Finland is on the border too but a much less exposed portion.
The costs of this invasion were clear from the outset. Russia isnt going into this thinking it will come out stronger and ready to conquer the world. It's a fairly desperate and high stakes ploy to shield their jugular.
This is more a nationalist Russkiy Mir/Russkaya Zemlya kind of mental jerk, as evidenced by that article that RIA Novosti published (and then pulled)[0]: if they don't take now what they consider theirs(Ukraine), then they never will if they join NATO. To have one people split in two (though Ukrainians largely disagree) is unacceptable to them.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
Ah, good to hear you know more about how Russia sees these things than they do themselves.
Because Stalin sure didn't seem to see it your way in the winter of 1939.
Aren't you beginning to sound ludicrous even to yourself by now?
What is it about Putin's lie about being willing to stop an invasion if NATO ruled out Ukraine ever joining that makes it any more convincing than the others?
Attitudes like yours are far, far more responsible for the suffering of your friends and family than anything NATO ever did, and not because NATO members haven't done a lot wrong in other theatres of war.
* The sheer overwhelming strategic significance of the Ukrainian border. It is where Russia almost lost to the Nazis.
* His willingness for Russia to endure such an extreme cost. Russia will pay dearly for this invasion and we have watched him for 20 years enough to know that minimizing cost and acting in a rational, measured and brutal manner is the norm.
* The fact that if this goes badly he could very well have his head on a stake. Russia paying dearly very much puts his personal safety at stake.
I wouldnt believe a deadbeat liar telling me that he'll have my money by Friday, but if he's telling me to back off or he'll punch me I will.
The extreme stakes make it far more likely that he wants the expansion he made the declaration of war speech about (and even more to crushing the idea of a potential successful large democracy full of Russian speakers), not an empty promise concerning something that wasn't likely to happen anyway and is of little interest except in ensuring ease of invading Ukraine. The Ukraine border is of zero strategic value to NATO since they're not remotely interested in or capable of mounting a ground invasion against a nuclear power whose terrain is where world conquerors go to die (and pretty much the only conceivable circumstance where they might have done it is in response to Russia invading Ukraine... the thing he actually did). They don't exactly have happy memories of fighting in Finland either, which is where their border with a newly galvanised NATO will end up instead.
It's even more transparently bullshit version of the preemptive defence doctrine than WMDs in Iraq, to the extent he had to manufacture a secondary excuse for domestic consumption because even a public that buys the idea he's shelling Kiev to defending the Donbas from atrocities won't believe he had to do it to save the country from NATO invasion.
Based on the Paradox of Tolerance it would be “Peace is the highest priority amongst the peaceful, except against a non-peaceful entity.”
You cant accept every argument someone makes. Because they’ll realize it in short order and then make stupid arguments to manipulate you.
“Russia needs to protect itself from Ukraine” is a dishonest, stupid argument.
NATO does want to threaten it. NATO does want Ukraine to join and Ukraine wants to join it.
NATO's ability to threaten Russia from Ukraine's border would jump considerably.
They stated very clearly at the Bucharest conference in 2008 and again in Brussels in 2021 that Ukraine will join.
I'm frankly appalled at the number of times I have had people tell me that Ukraine "would never have joined NATO". It was well on its way to membership.
Im also terrified at the number of people willing to be dragged down on a path to nuclear war by NATO trying to secure a strategic advantage on Russia's border.
Why is NATO fucking with a nuclear power?? Russia isnt Libya. Russia can destroy us.
> They stated very clearly at the Bucharest conference in 2008 and again in Brussels in 2021 that Ukraine will join.
Are you truly so stupid that you don't understand what you're replying to, or do you just think everyone else here is, so they'll buy your pro-Putin talking points?
The point was that if Ukraine joins NATO, that's not because of NATO actively trying to expand eastwards but because Ukraine themselves have been begging to be admitted. You know, almost as if they were an independent nation that decides for itself which alliances it will (try to) join, not someone else's "border", satellite, puppet, or general plaything... Oh well, I take back the "you know" bit, because this concept of sovereignty for any country near Russia seems as impossible to grasp for you as it is for Putin.
> ...dragged down on a path to nuclear war by NATO...
Keep trying to shift the blame. Only Putler's Russia is dragging the world down that path.
Seems to have already succeeded in dragging you down the garden path.
I'm failing to see the threat of NATO to Russia otherwise. NATO only ever goes against dictators and acts of ethnic or religious cleansing and such things as territorial conquest, etc.
But even given Putin, his regime having access to Nuclear Weapons, I still doubt NATO is a threat. Look at North Korea, even though US has military bases in South Korea, no one is touching North Korea.
So in my opinion, it's pretty clear to me the whole NATO thing is false pretense and justification hiding an ulterior motive, very similar to the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Let me know if there's something I don't know otherwise.
NATO invaded Libya after promising to leave it alone after stopping their nuclear weapons program.
NATO supports Saudi Arabia's war of aggression against Yemen. I shouldnt have to remind you that Saudi Arabia is run by a brutal dictator.
NATO was set up with the singular purpose to oppose Russia.
It's has always threatened Russia. It will always threaten Russia. Putin is staking everything on this war in a desperate attempt to push back that threat with one hand on the nuclear button, making it abundantly clear that all we have to do is back off.
> NATO was set up with the singular purpose to oppose Russia.
Only to the extent of defending against Russian aggression.
> It's has always threatened Russia.
How can it, when it provides a path for Russia to join them? A path which Russia never seriously pursued.
Russia demanding Ukraine to never join amounts to demanding that Ukraine must remain relatively defenseless against Russian attack.
We're not the ones doing the invading.
And what does Ukraine need? Ukraine needs to protect itself from Russia.
Can't you stop echoing Putler's lies, please? Thank you.
Blood has been spilled earning freedom from tyrany ever since people have existed. Because it was worth it. Because it was cheaper than continuing to pay the price in blood of tolerating tyrany. Blood will continue to be spilled in the name of freedom for as long as people continue to tyranize each other, because it will continue to, at some point, be worth it.
It might be cheaper over the long run to keep freedom than to constantly abandon it - and then only later, when it is much more difficult to effect change, to attempt to reclaim it. But even that may not be an option, for many are too stubborn or ignorant to learn from the mistakes of history or others - no, they must make the mistake themselves, and leave it to their children to pay the price.
If it were about democracy NATO would respect the results of the crimean referendum (if pew research says thats what 90% of crimeans want and it does im inclined to believe them).
We are not the good guys bringing peace, freedom and democracy to the world. We are an empire threatening another empire along its most exposed border at the exact point where it was almost defeated by the Nazis.
Belief that our leaders are the bringers of peace, freedom and democracy is going to end very, very badly. Our leaders want power.
Sure. For some carefully chosen definition of "Crimeans".
Was that poll held before (which I doubt) or after (like the infamous "referendum") Russia had invaded, transported out hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tartars, and shipped in as many Russian national(ist)s to replace them?
Listen, man: I suppose it's possible that you somehow are neither intentionally peddling Putin's propaganda, nor a dimwitted dupe who has hook-line-and-sinker fallen for it. But as you must have noticed by now, quite a lot of us here think you come off very much as if you belong to at least one of those categories. Maybe you ought to have a good long think about why that is, and whether perhaps it's you who should open your eyes and rethink your values?
No, not necessarily.
It depends on the alternative.
> a country that is trying to protect the integrity of its most exposed border from an explicitly hostile power (NATO).
A) Ukraine is its own country, not Russia's border.
B) Only one actor in this drama is being explicitly hostile: Putler's Russia.
PS: I’m Russian and I want this war to stop immediately.
Putin is just trying to restore the idea of Russian Empire and/or Soviet Union. Same as Hitler trying to restore the German Empire.
The fact that Putin is using Ukraine's possibly joining NATO as an excuse to invade does not mean he would not have invaded anyway. It's entirely likely he would have seen that as a further sign of weakness and simply found another excuse. So no, I don't agree that what you said is true and I don't understand how you can be so sure of it.
Putin is not unaware that Russia will come out of this bloody and bruised and nearly broken (potentially completely) and he's not irrational either.
No, you quite obviously don't.
There's a big difference between Ukraine saying it won't join (that's up to them) and NATO acknowledging Russia "sphere of influence" arguments by preventivly saying they won't be allowed to.
Putin has explicitly told us why he went to war, and it is to do with reversing Russia’s territorial losses since 1991 or even 1917.
Listen to what he says: he claims Ukraine is a fake state and that it is really part of Russia. In 2005 he claimed that the collapse of the USSR was a geopolitical tragedy and a further tragedy because it meant that many "fellow citizens" were now outside of Russia's borders. I.e. Putin wants to re-establish Muscovite control over vast swathes of territory he believes are Russia's right to control.
Putin wants his name in history books.
Putin wants to expand his dominance in northern Asia. 140m citizens is not enough; he wants to add 45m Ukrainians to have 185m! He is a colonial dictator in his homeland and does as he pleases!
But also, Russia's belief that it's entitled to decide for another sovereign country which clubs it can and cannot join reveals what Russia's actual intentions were. [EDIT: The relevant club for Ukraine is actually the European Union.]
The so-called "anti-Imperialists" on the far left like George Galloway who have always seen NATO as the enemy, and have always supported anti-NATO countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela and China with 95% of their throats, have a really odd understanding of what imperialism is. Is this war the most blatant, non-galaxy-brained instance of "imperialism" that we've seen in many of our lifetimes?
Just because US is warmongering doesn't mean russia can too.
This kind of argument only derails conversations and doesn't achieve anything.
>It's an unpopular fact but it's still true.
absolutely not. The events of the last few days show exactly why Ukraine was right to want to join NATO. Ukraine knows Russia probably better than anybody else in the world.
If anything Ukraine's refusal to promise neutrality is just a convenient - in Russian view - excuse for the invasion. Blaming Ukraine like you do is just a victim blaming.
If Ukraine wants to break up with Russia and join other alliances because it's an ass and offers nothing Ukraine wants, who is Russia to stop it?
This is not a fact. It is at best an educated and optimistic opinion.
Not even that. It is at best an uneducated and wildly optimistic opinion.
Russia agreed to respect Ukrainian territory if they give up their nuclear arsenal.
Maybe before russia starts demanding something they should first keep their promises first
> Shortly afterwards, Hitler reneged on his solemn promises to respect the integrity of Czechoslovakia
> Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states".
Giving in to the demands of the aggressor may "stop" the war for the time being, yes. It doesn't actually solve the problem.
If you really get into it, there's an argument that it bought valuable time; that maybe it was only ever supposed to be a delay, but I think that might be giving too much credit - a positive sure, just perhaps not the intention: Chamberlain returned to London declaring 'peace for our time'.
To whom? To Hitler? Because the Allies didn’t prepare for what was coming.
Democratisation through osmosis has utterly failed. The result has been the subjugation of Hong Kong, genocide in Xinjiang and the invasion of Ukraine. Taiwan is next unless we wake up and make it perfectly clear to these people we absolutely will meet force with force and that we have plenty of hard power to use alongside our soft power. It may be too late for Ukraine, we failed them miserably by playing nice too long, but it's not too late for Taiwan.
The fact that Taiwan has been a us ally for decades and the US has strongly implied in the past and now clearly stated that they will defend them matters. The US had never even implied they would defend Ukraine and had no treaty obligation to do so.
Also China is not Russia, while it's building a formidable navy, air-force and ground force and may be more capable than their Russian conventional counterparts, their nuclear deterrent may not be enough to deter an American intervention in Taiwan. Their nuclear force is small, and though rapidly growing, currently not enough to reliably threaten the US, the destruction is not so mutually assured in the China US equation.
Do you think Russian leaders should allow this to happen?
Take for example the Middle East: there is no way you could solve the problem by talking, especially now. Palestinians believe this is their soil, the Israeli think otherwise, the former send rockets, the latter shoot these rockets and send their pilots, the pilots see the attackers tied to children on the roofs... This has gone too far over the years.
In all those months it seems that only China and the Winter Olympics really did delay the attack.
But you're right that their use against cities full of civilians is wrong, very likely a war crime.
I also agree that it seems like Putin delayed the invasion after the Winter Olympics. And damn you Putin for invading during the Winter Paralympic Games (Fri 4 Mar to Sun 13 Mar). What a shame. (Side note: I am happy to see each Olympics brings the Paralympic Games more and more into the spotlight. I look forward to the day that events are rightfully held in parallel.)
Iraq and Syria were obliterated. Afghanistan didn't fare much better and was the longest war in U.S history.
Russia has been killing people in its so-called "sphere of influence" my entire life as well. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine.
Parts of Africa, such as the Congo and Somalia, have been de-facto war zones for decades.
I don't mean to sound harsh but your comment about humanity, or even certain cross-sections of it, having somehow transcended war, strikes me as naive and in denial of what the "post war" (as in post-WWII) era has actually been like.
Granted, the US did a lot of warmongering in the middle east; I get that they wanted to retaliate after 9/11, but instead of rooting out the ones responsible directly they made up a motive (WOMD in Iraq) and did a full scale invasion there; I'm not saying Iraq was a pleasant, peaceful country or that Hussein was a nice guy, but the US invaded it under false pretenses and dragged other countries into it, eventually leading to the rise of IS and a lot of other things that I only have a superficial knowledge of.
But Europe hasn't done any of that, as far as I'm aware they've held a "live and let live" line since the fall of the USSR.
Care to elaborate what's your definition of defense in this instance? Do you consider that Russia is "defending" East Ukraine population by attacking Kyiv? (like NATO was "defending" Kosovo people by bombing Northern and Central Serbia and even Montenegro)
"Defense" applies to Kosovo population (of course, official Serbian line is to dispute that too), but I don't see how NATO comes into the picture?
For example, Panama, Chile, Germany, Japan, South Korea all turned out better after US intervention. But Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya got worse.
It is tough to choose the lesser of two evil, when you are in a democratically free country, you do wonder if the opportunity shows up, should you go help others overturn their dictator, and if so, will they then be able to establish a free democracy or will that just replace one dictator with a worse one? But what also happens is the fear, that if more and more countries lose freedom and democracy, and become dictatorships, then countries in free democracies get scared that they will be next, which tend to push them to act and try and overthrow other dictatorships when the opportunity shows up.
Just so you know, there used to be a single Korea. One of them is doing OK now, although it took like 35 years after the US invaded before SK transformed itself into a democratic country, which Koreans did IN SPITE of American support for their dictator. The other one is possibly the worst regime currently active on Earth.
South Korea is really not an American FP win.
Sorry but please dive a bit into non-western news reports to get a real world view
The US does a lot of warmongering everywhere. It mongers at China, it mongers at Russia. It's in fact a big bully, all the more dangerous because of the knowledge that they are slowly becoming obsolete. The EU in a lot of ways acts as a sock puppet for the US, so this is definitely the result of a shared responsibility. Collectively, we should have been better. We were not. Now Ukraine is suffering.
Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo
Edit: actually, I think the google translate version is plenty readable.
https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/n...
This is of the main guys who did the talking in the 90s, so you might want to have a gander at it.
What would happen if NATO seriously offered to take both Ukraine and Russia as members TODAY?
Putin wanted to skip the readiness steps applied to aspiring members and just be jumped in. Readiness is quite important, because NATO doesn't work by voting but consensus/unanimity.
> but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off
They weren't sent off, they were admitted to the Partnership for Peace (the onboarding path for membership) before Putin even came into office, and never formally pursued anything farther, Putin specifically indicating that he found applying the accession process used for aspiring members to Russia rather than a direct invitation for full membership improper.
> Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
Would it? How? Would it stopped Putin from escalating attacks from those areas and then claiming that attacks on them, combined with the historical “fact” that Ukraine was an unjustly created entity ripped from Russian territory, justified the invasion of the rest? How does that work?
So what you're saying is that these states in question don't deserve the right to self-sovereignity. The people in the independent states wanted in NATO and not the other way around.
The only weird thing is that so many Westerners thoughtlessly regurgitate it.
Putin had demands that were de facto impossible to fulfill, they read as if the US/European governments had power over e.g. the desires of the inhabitants of the Baltic states. They all wanted into the EU/NATO after the Cold War for reasons that aren't hard to empathize with.
In a security-political sense, making concessions that impact your weakest allies is a surefire way to destabilize your own alliance.
Also, why do we have to make concessions in terms of Ukraine and guaranteeing that Ukraine won't join EU/NATO? Putin should have been talking to Ukraine about that and giving concessions to Ukraine in exchange for staving off any alliance memberships - but it's now clear why he didn't.
Because these were literally Russia's ridiculous "demands".
Consider what would have happened if "The West" handed Putin a detailed list of the sanctions that are in effect now A WEEK AGO.
Lower costs and lower risks. That's why far-sighted politics are so important.
Putin would say that is why he attacked Ukraine. His cheerleads would then blame Biden, claiming Putin had no choice.
So this is easy to say now, but I don't think there would have been any takers for this three weeks ago when for instance Germany was still firmly in the mistaken mindset that all of this is so unlikely that they don't need to prepare for it at all.
Overall, assuming the universe has some arrow towards something we arbitrarily defined as "progress" has no rational scientific basis, AFAIK? "Adaptation" we have proven, but that has nothing to do with what we see as progress. Adaptation may very well be less brain, less culture, less humans.
I think if you want to have only certain types of developments and behavior you need to continuously and forever fight against the randomness of the universe, whose forces, have no purpose or direction.
War and aggression never was off the table - it became more organized and carried out by large-group actors. Individual violence is down, it cannot compete with organized humans. Then the nuclear deterrent may have prevented a few invasions. The post WWII peace period in the countries most here (including myself) care about was not that long, and we still had wars even so (Yugoslavia, and at the edges of "Europe" in former Soviet areas).
You don't need to fire a single shot, you only need to move the units closer to the border, so aggresor needs to keep some of his units on his own territory "just in case".
Yeah, it would be nice if we lived in a world, where we can solve problems without involving the army at all, but it's not here yet.