The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
Russia in fact has own writings and speeches. Putin talks about his own historical ideas. Putin talked about it for years at this point. Russian journals print their own articles expressing regrets for big Russia. The whole "Ukraine should not exist as nation" comes from what Russian leadership talks about and talked about for years. Russians, the political minority that is running away out of genuine fear (rather then economy) now were talking about all this for years.
There is also pattern in which Russian non-profits got targeted or who got assassinated. Pattern in who was getting rehabilitated and who is still criminal. Stalin is turning into capable manager and his victims are not rehabilitated unless they were actually innocent of being opposition. The non profits trying to uncover communist crimes (including KGB crimes) were the ones suppressed by Putin. The final blow happened now, but Memorial was quite clearly oppressed for years now.
You talk about Russia as one group and it is like that now, when everyone is passive. Opposition got eliminated and state security strengthened. It happened over years. And it did not happened because of NATO.
> The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
Of course, ignoring previous involvement of Russia in Ukraine. It is not like Viktor Yanukovych was not ... lets say influenced by Russia. And Ukrainine still wants to go into NATO and Eu. Desperately they want in.
> present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions
Sure. Not being in NATO and being next to Russia, makes you potential Russian target. Russia attacking non-NATO country does not prove Russia would be peaceful country had NATO not expanded. Nothing about internal Russian politics points toward them being happy and content where they are.
Even Russia stopped the whole "we are afraid of NATO" talking point. Now it is only "denacification" or "protecting Russians in Ukraine" or "Ukrainians are Russians" or "Ukrainians were commtiting genocide" or, in latest talks, "we will destroy them". This talking point existed for a whole week and when it did not flied, Russia abandoned it with no regret.
Would the US respond kindly to China entering Mexico in a "defensive military pact". Of course not. You make threatening moves to a superpower, they will respond.
Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.
If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine.
Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?
It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.
Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose.
it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.
Russia has poked the Ukrainian bear, and now the bear is coming after Russia. Bears do what bears do.
If an argument works, it works both ways. Anything else is propagandistic.
That seems to be the question going largely unanswered.
No, that's not accurate. There doesn't seem to be any "nobody knows" sentiment, the other responses from cuteboy19 and watwut cover it well. There is no need to throw doubt here.
But you're right, in that the surprise is that Russia thought that it would be a good idea.
> why did we think this was a good idea?
I thought it is good idea to join NATO, because then NATO has to help you defend if/when Russia gets expansive again. Or someone else, but realistically it is Russia who is most likely to do it.
Ahem - https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-...
This has been widely known for 25 years that it would lead to war. This is also why the Russian border states not threatening to join NATO are not under attack. Only Ukraine.
Look at this map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi... and ask yourself why wouldn't Russia feel this as an evergrowing encroachment by their enemies. Keeping in mind that NATO = US Military.
Who is being imperial though? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi...
Bears do what bears do. No reason to make up feel good rationales about how attacked people actually deserves it nor how the bear attack was actually caused by a Wolf over the next hill.
I'm amazed that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around why Russia might see it as a threat.
Would the US see it as a threat if the Chinese military moved weapons, people and military training into Mexico? Or if the Soviets had tried the same with Cuba during the Cold War?
I think some people just see us as the good guys because of course we are. But everyone tends to see themselves as the good guys...
except that russia already has NATO neigbours.
Let us apply this logic to other countries. Maybe Poland or Lithuania are threatened but a Russian presence in Kaliningrad. So I guess maybe they too should stage a special operation to rid the area of Putin's Neo fascists?
The point is that this kind of thinking only considers Russia as an active agent, and everyone else is just some sort of NPC. It's extremely convenient that it aligns with Putin's propaganda of course
There was no risk of Ukraine joining NATO anytime soon.
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, but now that Biden is back on top the clock has started ticking again. So yes, Ukraine was very much on its way into NATO, but they needed to either officially cede Crimea and Donbass to Russia, or expel Russia to be eligible. So something had to give.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...