Seriously, this is completely psycho ex-boyfriend territory. "You provoked me by getting new friends and trying to get a restraining order against me. So really this is your fault."
even if it were a quick and easy three day excursion to kyiv, congratulations! your newly annexed ukraine is now... right on the edge of nato poland. and other countries that were on the fence might be more likely to join, lest they be next in russia's sights.
granted, a lot of this analysis is from the standpoint that nato had no plans to be militarily aggressive with russia. if you assume nato was gearing up to use ukraine as a means to get invasion forces into russia, then that shifts things. but there's no evidence that was ever on the table.
Why assume he planned to annex Ukraine? It seems more likely (at least to me) that he was planning on deposing the regime and installing a puppet president like the one in Belarus, or even leaving the regime in place but getting them to agree to permanent neutrality.
Listening to Putin's justifications is quite literally swallowing his propaganda.
He also said he was going there to de-Nazify Ukraine. ~2500 Azov Battalion members is not his concern. There are more Nazis in Russia than Ukraine.
He wants Ukraine because they're the breadbasket of the Eastern Bloc. He wants to expand Russia's territory. Just look at Crimea.
Any "fear" or "self-defense" Putin convinces you he is acting on is nothing but falling for his anti-west propaganda.
I would argue he wants Ukraine so he can protect and control the energy (gas/oil) supply and maintain his personal position, power, and control and his (Russia's) position over Europe (because they are dependent on "him" and Russian energy (gas/oil).
>He also said he was going there to de-Nazify Ukraine
Sounds like US bringing "democracy" to Syria by arming rebels who behead children. [1]
>He wants Ukraine because they're the breadbasket of the Eastern Bloc
The hit from sanctions is larger than the potential gain in food security so I find this argument very hard to believe, and I haven't seen anyone reputable make this claim either.
>He wants to expand Russia's territory
This seems like a claim that is not supported by Russia's actions nor words. What evidence is there of this? It's like claiming the US invaded Afghanistan to expand territory.
>Just look at Crimea.
Crimean people wanted to join Russia according to independent non-Russian pollsters like Pew, so I find it hard to care. The people overwhelmingly supported it, unless you think democracy doesn't matter.
>Any "fear" or "self-defense" Putin convinces you he is acting on is nothing but falling for his anti-west propaganda.
This would be easier to believe if Kamala Harris wasn't sabre rattling in Munich last month.
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-backed-moderate-rebels-behe...
While the US's foreign policy is abhorrent, they're really not comparable. Putin created a strawman and has been telling Russians that they're there as a means to defend Russia from Ukrainian Nazis.
It's more similar to the US invading Iraq because of WMDs.
> The hit from sanctions is larger than the potential gain in food security so I find this argument very hard to believe, and I haven't seen anyone reputable make this claim either.
Clearly Putin miscalculated. He thought Ukraine would roll over.
Ukraine's role as the breadbasket isn't a secret. Adding that amount of fertile land to Russia's territory is a fairly obvious reason for wanting to acquire it [1]. From a strategic point of view, it's been discussed since before the invasion as a reason why he'd want to take over Ukraine (and why Crimea was a stepping stone to doing so).
> This seems like a claim that is not supported by Russia's actions nor words. What evidence is there of this? It's like claiming the US invaded Afghanistan to expand territory.
How is Russia invading Ukraine in attempt to take it over not supported by this?
> This would be easier to believe if Kamala Harris wasn't sabre rattling in Munich last month.
It's pretty obvious that Putin would use this as a means to justify escalation. He'd been moving armaments and soldiers to the border for much longer than a month. This has been a plan in action for quite a while. It's wild to claim that VP Harris's presence a couple of weeks before Russia's invasion had any actual involvement with Putin's justifications for invasion.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-03-06/rus...
This is opinion. Russia doesn't claim this, nor do their actions suggest this is their goal. Invasion is hardly ever about territory expansion. Afghanisatan, Iraq, Libya. Take your pick.
If China invaded Taiwan it'd be easy to say it was an attempt to take it over, because China has literally stated this is their goal. Russia has never said anything remotely like that.
>It's wild to claim that VP Harris's presence a couple of weeks before Russia's invasion had any actual involvement with Putin's justifications for invasion.
She was in Europe advocating Ukraine join NATO after Russia stated it is unacceptable. How is this not provocation? Kamala Harris is a liability and has a long line of incompetent decision making in her career, whether it's throwing innocent black men in jail as a prosecutor or being highly involved in the Afghanistan catastrophe. This is simply her latest failure in leadership.
They want to overthrow Zelenskyy and the other govt officials and install his own puppet government. He invaded and took over Crimea. There's no other way to read this situation than conquest.
> She was in Europe advocating Ukraine join NATO after Russia stated it is unacceptable. How is this not provocation? Kamala Harris is a liability and has a long line of incompetent decision making in her career, whether it's throwing innocent black men in jail as a prosecutor or being highly involved in the Afghanistan catastrophe. This is simply her latest failure in leadership.
It's obvious you have a political bias here and are casting undo blame on the administration. Blaming VP Harris for Russia invading Ukraine is straight out of Fox News talking points, which have become an extension of RT and other parroted Russian propaganda.
This invasion has been in the works for over a year. Putin has been moving forces to the border for months. It was going to happen regardless of any of the west's posturing. The only thing we could've done is been more proactive about sanctions in attempt to dissuade, but that would've been seen as escalation as well. It's clear that Putin is willing to draw the iron curtain again, and he put himself in a position where he has no good out.
Their homepage is plastered with material advocating the US intervene. [1] [2] [3] [4] What are you talking about?
How can they simultaneously be pro-Putin and pro-Ukraine?
This sounds like conspiracy theory.
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-us-ambassador-to-nato-w...
[2] https://www.foxnews.com/media/ukraine-fighter-jets-poland-bi...
[3] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-bystander-ukraine-ener...
[4] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ukrainian-crisis-china-russi...
...meanwhile Russia's very own Wagner Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group) is composed of literal Nazis, swastika tattoos and all.
Instead he’s bombing Ukraine into the ground including hospitals.
I’m not quite sure if you are saying this is natos fault, but the level of escalation here from Putin is ridiculous.
Was that the main objective? As a 30+ y-o, I'm familiar with collateral damages but they usually result from the US or their allies. Why would this bombing be considered differently, especially if Russia use less precise weapons (for lack of other options).
>I’m not quite sure if you are saying this is natos fault, but the level of escalation here from Putin is ridiculous.
What did NATO do with regard to every Russian requests regarding neutral states between NATO and Russia? Do you remember how the US reacted when the USSR put missiles in Cuba?
You mean like the Budapest Memorandum[1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...