Please do endorse Ukraine's side of the conflict. They are being invaded and murdered in their homeland. They did not start this. They did not threaten anybody. It's not OK to see what's happening and remain neutral.
Funny, that link you posted was already grey on my browser, and yet I rest my case: NATO didn't invade any country and forced it to join. The fact that most eastern European countries lined up to join the very first moment they could, is because they knew fully well what monster lied to the east, and experienced its brutality within living memory. Most importantly, they lined up to join because they are free to choose, and so they did.
Attacking countries because they don't like you and join your opponent is a laughably thin bullshit pretext. Russia already bordered 6 NATO countries, annexing Ukraine would actually push that number UP. Is that going to be justification for further aggression?
You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny, therefore they are free to join NATO, the EU, my book club and whatever else they choose, or you don't, in which case I'd like to understand why, in your opinion, they are not free, and, apparently, why it's ok in your opinion to murder and invade them if they try.
I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization, despite being convinced of that, because that's not the point here: even if they weren't, it's still NOT OKAY to attack countries who wish to stop being threatened by you, and seek its protection.
>Putin isn’t even asking Ukraine to join CSTO
They should genuinely be thankful for that. Just like its predecessor Warsaw Pact, CSTO has exclusively invaded its own member countries. It's probably the worst organization you'd want to join
Oh really that's new for me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
>You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny
So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis).
>I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization
Funny that you say that, because they think they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
>>NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party
Which countries NATO invaded again?
> So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis)
Cuba is still in charge of their destiny. They are still hostile to the US 60 years on. Cuba crisis was settled by the Soviet withdrawing their nuclear weapon, not by a US invasion. Apparently the Soviets cared more about having a stable relationship with the US than popping up Cuba.
-Bosnia and Herzegovina
-Kosovo
-Macedonia
-Afghanistan
They call it "peace mission" and "Security mission" , putin calls it "special operation"
>They are still hostile to the US 60 years on
Just the US still imposes sanctions toward Cuba, not the other way around, and btw Cuba never tried to invade the US...Bay of pigs? Guantanamo?
>the Soviet withdrawing their nuclear weapon
Would be nice if the US would do the same with the nuclear weapons in turkey no?
The double standards you have are fascinating.
https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-4-...
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A105313...
Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico declared they wanted to join this alliance, and were being supplied military weapons and training by this alliance over the past few years... wouldn't you think the US would be somewhat alarmed or threatened? (Cuba missile crisis hello?) Furthermore, in such a situation, how likely would the US warn Mexico to not join this alliance, and/or threaten to invade if they didn't demiliterize? How likely would we invade if they refused? We did invade Iraq after all, over supposedly weapons of mass destruction - why not an unfriendly nation on our border that has been militarizing the past few years?
Now replace Ukraine with Mexico, and Russia with US, and that's basically the situation.
Actually, you're proving my point. The Zimmermann Telegram publication caused outrage and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I. And difference here is that Mexico ultimately decided to not join this alliance (so we didn't invade Mexico), whereas Ukraine announced they'd like to join such an alliance.
No, the main catalyst was definitely Germany's submarine warfare against U.S. civilian ships. Prior to that, orientation in the U.S. was largely against the war despite the Zimmermann telegram.
I am from eastern Europe and I can tell you we did not want to enter in NATO because we love USA and agree with it 100% , we did it to get into this defensive alliance to protect ourselves from Russia. Nobody here wants to sacrifice their live to bring freedom or Western values to Russians, we want to be left alone and we want to be able to do aliances and partnerships without the big bully to veto it.
If you listen to all of Putin speeches and not some cherry picked parts, you will see he admitted he wants to restore the URSS , he started the war to bring back is "brothers" into URSS and this NATO stuff is upsetting him because if he waits until Ukraine or Moldove enters NATO he will not be able to make URSS great again.