Invading Ukraine was never about f%$'ing NATO (PROOF)

[TheTexan]

Or if they do, they sure aren't letting anyone in on it. Or even letting anyone suspect that they know.

I would put Anthony Blinken in that category. He knows what's going on, but chooses to frame it as Russian aggression, as that matches his agenda.

 

[Aratus]

Flat out... he invaded because he felt like invading. Nothing the Ukraine did or was is why he did this. Not even Hitler's or Stalin's ghosts prompted his actions. Keep in mind, duckies.... he had fun propping up ASSAD in Syria, well after the dude would have and should have gone into a seedy & swarmy exile. Putin wanted the war. He boldly invaded. Its like looking at a power play akin to the ones Napoleon Buonaparte made over the course of his life. PUTIN HAS AN EGO. Putin = EGO!!!!

 

[Aratus]

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/18/archives/tv-missiles-of-october-recalls-the-cuban-crisisil.html

 

[TheTexan]

Flat out... he invaded because he felt like invading. Nothing the Ukraine did or was is why he did this. Not even Hitler's or Stalin's ghosts prompted his actions. Keep in mind, duckies.... he had fun propping up ASSAD in Syria, well after the dude would have and should have gone into a seedy & swarmy exile. Putin wanted the war. He boldly invaded. Its like looking at a power play akin to the ones Napoleon Buonaparte made over the course of his life. PUTIN HAS AN EGO. Putin = EGO!!!!

Thanks for your obviously well-thought out informed opinion

 

[Aratus]

I must add that it is not Bobby Kennedy who de-escalated the global crisis that almost brought the USSR and the USA into World War 3 in 1962. Putin is slightly older than i am. We are nearing the 60 year mark since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Nikita Khrushchev pulls the nukes out of Cuba after we agree to do likewise with our NATO nukes that were in Turkey. Yes.... Putin yearns for the old borders of the USSR. However he is slightly less Marxist than Stalin was. Biden spent 50 years of his adult life trying to be the next JFK. This is WHY 2o22 has its echoes of 1962.

 

[Aratus]

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nikita-Sergeyevich-Khrushchev

 

[Todd]

I think that the NATO toying with the idea of having Ukraine was the tipping point.

 

[vita3]

I think that the NATO toying with the idea of having Ukraine was the tipping point.

Swapping NATO military equipment for Russian was an issue lol

In fact NATO has been @ war with Donbass region (Russkies supporting) since 2014

Idiotic argument.

 

[Todd]

Swapping NATO military equipment for Russian was an issue lol

In fact NATO has been @ war with Donbass region (Russkies supporting) since 2014

Idiotic argument.

Then I guess John Mearsheimer who is one of like maybe a handful of of voices who has been talking about this since 2004 is an idiot?

 

[TheTexan]

Then I guess John Mearsheimer who is one of like maybe a handful of of voices who has been talking about this since 2004 is an idiot?

Yes.

 

[vita3]

Then I guess John Mearsheimer who is one of like maybe a handful of of voices who has been talking about this since 2004 is an idiot?

Your argument is not idiotic & Mersheheimer is on point & honest

I’m Trying to say of course NATO miltary expansion was huge part of red line for Russia

 

[TheTexan]

Your argument is not idiotic & Mersheheimer is on point & honest

I’m Trying to say of course NATO miltary expansion was huge part of red line for Russia

Even Anthony Blinken knows it was never about NATO expansion.

"It is abundantly clear, in President Putin's own words, that this was never about Ukraine potentially being part of NATO"

 

[TheTexan]

From 1:30 to 2:00 Blinken gets it mostly accurate. He phrases it in evil villain terms but at a very high level it's otherwise accurate. (He of course leaves out the part where the regions Russia seeks to annex, want to be annexed by Russia, and are currently under heavy oppression & murder by the current Ukrainian regime.)



Putin has wanted to reincorporate the Donbass, at least as early as 2001. NATO concerns may have forced the timing of it (debatable), but it's not the root cause of Russia's invasion.

 

[TheTexan]

The below is strongly recommended viewing for anyone who thinks Putin invaded because of "NATO expansion"

 

[Todd]

I haven't heard of him until now, and having read a couple of his pieces, his take is not "great".

Just because he blames the west and not Putin does not make his take "great".

He still (seems to) promote the idea that Putin invaded Ukraine because of fears of general NATO expansion. (meaning proximity to Moscow)

I say "seems to" because if I were to give him an extreme benefit of the doubt, I could very generously interpret his article to mean something that actually made sense.

So in the best interpretation of his writings, he's a very poor communicator.

Take this article for example:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

He doesn't even mention the shelling of Donbass. And he barely even mentions Donbass at all.

If he has other articles that are better, feel free to post.... but otherwise, I'm a give 2 big to that garbage.

Who should we be listening to in order to learn about the International relations situation in this region then? If Professor Mearsheimer isn't the one, I'm all ears on your recommedation.

 

[TheTexan]

Who should we be listening to in order to learn about the International relations situation in this region then? If Professor Mearsheimer isn't the one, I'm all ears on your recommedation.

Scott Ritter is a reliable expert on this. He's done a ton of interviews, and they all have good content.

Personally, I got my information from documentaries and spending far too much time than I should have watching interviews with people from that region. Scott Ritter is one of the few people's perspectives that actually lines up consistently with what I have learned for myself.

 

[vita3]

I like Scott Ritter. Very intelligent & is willing to talk with almost anyone. Deserves a lot of credit for keeping his integrity in regards to Iraq WMD episode

He does get way too excited & emotional

Feel like he could be a important link back to relationship w/ Russia,

 

[Todd]

Scott Ritter is a reliable expert on this. He's done a ton of interviews, and they all have good content.

Personally, I got my information from documentaries and spending far too much time than I should have watching interviews with people from that region. Scott Ritter is one of the few people's perspectives that actually lines up consistently with what I have learned for myself.

But here's the crux. Scott Ritter Mearsheimer and Steven Walt come from the same school of belief on international politics. Ritter isn't the academic expert, but he developed his beliefs based on his experience. I find it kind of strange that you don't know this. He quotes him often. He has been involved in lectures and seminars since the early 2000's with both men speaking on these issues. I think you might need to rethink calling Mearsheimer and idiot. These guys have been right about the whole damn course of international politics for decades. I was reading Mearsheimer and Walt in my college days. There are very few International Relations thinkers who are as clear and as accurate on what causes international conflict than these two guys. Nobody is 100% truth.

Ritter is great, but just because it aligns with your belief so much doesn't make it absolute. I am not going to nitpick Ritter's false assumptions and analysis. That' throwing the baby out with the bath water. He's very spot on about the overall situation. I agree with you on that. But they are all from the same school of analysis.

 

[Todd]

The below is strongly recommended viewing for anyone who thinks Putin invaded because of "NATO expansion"

I agree with his assessment.

 

[TheTexan]

But here's the crux. Scott Ritter Mearsheimer and Steven Walt come from the same school of belief on international politics. Ritter isn't the academic expert, but he developed his beliefs based on his experience. I find it kind of strange that you don't know this. He quotes him often. He has been involved in lectures and seminars since the early 2000's with both men speaking on these issues. I think you might need to rethink calling Mearsheimer and idiot. These guys have been right about the whole damn course of international politics for decades. I was reading Mearsheimer and Walt in my college days. There are very few International Relations thinkers who are as clear and as accurate on what causes international conflict than these two guys. Nobody is 100% truth.

Ritter is great, but just because it aligns with your belief so much doesn't make it absolute. I am not going to nitpick Ritter's false assumptions and analysis. That' throwing the baby out with the bath water. He's very spot on about the overall situation. I agree with you on that. But they are all from the same school of analysis.

No, he's simply wrong. It's extremely easy to fall into the trap that they are saying the same thing, but they're not. Mearsheimer doesn't understand at all Russia's motivations. This is crystal clear in his Aug 22 piece playing with fire:

https://qoshe.com/foreign-affairs/john-j-mearsheimer/playing-with-fire-in-ukraine/144502887/amp

Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the West, Moscow did not invade Ukraine to conquer it and make it part of a Greater Russia. It was principally concerned with preventing Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border. Putin and his advisers were especially concerned about Ukraine eventually joining NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made the point succinctly in mid-January, saying at a press conference, “the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward.”

First, the "conventional wisdom in the west" is that he invaded Ukraine to annex it? News to me. Blinken is the only one I've heard who shares this view. Literally everyone else in the west: "he invaded cus NATO expansion" (pretty much mearsheimers exact view)

Second, his perspective ignores historical context. It ignores the fact that Putin has wanted to reintegrate east Ukraine since at least 2001. It ignores the fact that the Minsk agreements were about the safety and security of the Russians in Ukraine (NATO was not mentioned in either agreement). It ignores the fact that Russia took Crimea because it was about to be overrun by murderous nationalists. It ignores the fact that they were on the verge of doing the same thing to Donbass. It ignores the fact that NATO neutrality has consistently been on the table for a peace treaty, and yet - the hostilities continue. (that alone should make it obvious to any rational person that this isn't about NATO neutrality)

His perspective seems to be based on Lavrovs words. And Lavrov does have a tendency to point the finger at NATO a lot. Because NATO did have a big part to play in creating this mess. But Mearsheimers mistake is that he confuses western interventionist role in creating this mess, with a Russian fear of NATO expansion.

If he would just listen to Putins own words he has repeatedly made his motivations clear: The safety, security, and reintegration of Donbass.

His stated motivations are perfectly consistent with his actions so far. (Mearsheimers implied motivations are not, Finland, Estonia, etc are evidence)

If Mearsheimer were to have even addressed the above points in any amount of detail I would be more inclined to take him seriously. His perspective is consistently missing these details which makes his analysis incomplete at best, or more likely, as I would argue, just straight up wrong.