. . . If, in the immediate wake of the disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, playing footsies over NATO membership for Ukraine (which for Russia, was as much of a red line for them as the Soviets putting nukes 90 miles off of Florida) did not instigate the Russian invasion, then I don't know what did . . .
. . . If, in the immediate wake of the disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, playing footsies over NATO membership for Ukraine (which for Russia, was as much of a red line for them as the Soviets putting nukes 90 miles off of Florida) did not instigate the Russian invasion, then I don't know what did . . .
In case you're wondering, this is what started the war - biden dangling nato in front of zelensky and zelensky angling for it, both knowing that would cross a Russian red line and trigger an invasion. That is Putin's point and Trump's - that no former territory of Russia proper could be part of Nato or the E.U.
If you wanted to talk about "Russia proper" then the size of the country would barely extend beyond the 14-Century Principality of Muscovy. 95% of Russia's current territory is a conquered land. Also, NATO expansion as the root cause of the war is a straw man argument. Putin's invasion of Ukraine resulted in Finland becoming a part of NATO. This caused a drastic extension of the NATO-Russia contact line by some 800+ miles and brought the NATO-Russia boundary within ~70-mile range of St. Petersburg, Russia's second most important city. Yet, you don't hear almost anything emanating from Moscow in response to this development. And, oh BTW, Finland is also a former part of Russia (1809-1917).
Russia's borders included most of present day Ukraine (except Galicia) since the partition of Poland in the late 18th century (and "nyovorussia" (i.e., donbas, lushank and Crimea were conquered from the Ottoman well before that, and hadn't been under Ukrainian control since the middle ages)), which isn't to say that ukraine should still be part of Russia - they fought for and voted for their independence numerous times - but Putin made every clear any moves to add ukraine to nato and/or the E.U. would result in a Russian invasion. It's immaterial if the invasion triggered sweden/finnish NATO accession because Russia never cared about that - but we do know Russia cared about the east Slavic lands that had been part of Kievan rus, so it's hardly a strawman. Just because Putin's plan backfired and was not foolproof doesn't mean that his threats shouldn't have been taken seriously. When a dictator makes clear that if one does X, they will do Y (and backs that up with 100k troops on the border), we should take that seriously.
I don't need any history lessons. I know that stuff inside out, and then some. The fact that russia "cares" about the former lands of Kyievan Rus' bears no relation to the ongoing events. By this logic Mongolia has a right to care about the former lands of The Ulus of Jochi which included all of Muscovia. And what exactly does "caring" mean? We saw the practical manifestation of this care in places like Bucha, Borodyanka, Irpen', Izyum, Kupyansk, and Mariupol. BTW, I'm not sure how well you are plugged into the current situation in Ukraine, but current residents of the lands Putin "cares" about are the ones who hate russia most. Nowadays, the closer you get to the frontline the greater is hatred of Moscow. Why? Because residents of these territories feel betrayed: they indeed used to have sympathy for Russia, yet, they are the ones who got to experience all "pleasures" of the Russiky Mir. Also, I beg to differ that Russia never "cared" about Finland. Ever heard of the Winter War? The Russian invasion of Ukraine resurrected in Finns the memories of what had happened when russia attempted to "care" about them last time.
You can argue all you want but the facts on the ground remain the same: 1) Putin repeatedly warned nato accession discussions for ukraine would be a red line; 2) despite that, biden and zelensky continued to play footsies around that throughout 2021 after the Afghan withdrawal, knowing about Putin's redline; and 3) true to his word, Putin invaded after putting 100'k troops on the border for months. You can try to reason all you want with a rabid dog and dispute the many variations of the word "care," but if you have a stick at a rabid dog, all that is useless when they gnaw off your leg, and that's where we are today. Finland was decades ago and no one cares about that now and Russia never cared about Finland as much as it cared about nyovorussia, so you can continue debating these strawman, but unless you plan on raising, funding and equipping 1 million men to push Russian soldiers and their land mines back across the border, then you really have nothing to add. .
I understand perfectly what you are talking about...except that you are still failing to explain what gave putin a right to claim any red lines INSIDE a foreign sovereign state? (How would you react if India began drawing red lines inside Pakistan?) Also, the fact that you dismissing Finland's case shows that you accept at face value putin's NATO argument. If his fears of NATO expansion were genuine, he would have "blown head gasket" over Finland's accession to NATO because while prolonged discussions of NATO membership for Ukraine had been taking place since at least 2008 (actually earlier) with no visible result, Finland managed to slide into NATO at a neck-breaking speed. This provides a tangible factual evidence that for putin, it is not about NATO, but about preserving the ability to dismantle the Ukrainian statehood without suffering any major repercussions - he simply does not believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, plain and simple (I hope you can read the Russian government-controlled media in Russian language - there is a ton of evidence to that effect, and they are far more explicit with their domestic audience). Also you are completely wrong about Finland being decades ago and not being relevant - if it were the case, Finns would not have rushed to join NATO: decades may have passed but the heinous nature of the muscovite regime is still the same. To be completely objective though, I agree with you on one point: by pussyfooting around the issue of NATO membership without doing anything to implement it, Biden did place Ukraine in an untenable position. You either let them in as quickly as you let the Finns in, or you declare that the Ukrainian membership in NATO is not on the table. But that would undermine the standing NATO policy of open doors for democratic nations of Europe; in case of Ukraine, it would also look like a gigantic betrayal since this would consign Ukraine to living in the shadow of the muscovate satrapy and denying it a right to chart its own national course. (I'm not even mentioning that it was thanks to the US, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for a useless piece of toilet paper AKA the Budapest Memorandum.)
It doesn't matter who or what gave him the right. we're talking about realistic on the ground situations, not a court of law. If you want to sue him in icc and enforce the judgment be my guest, but in the real world, for better or worse, might makes right and there's nothing you can do about it unless you've got a million-man army armed to the teeth, or if you want to pay for that. You're looking for consistency in Putin's thinking and you won't find it except he seems to think Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are the tripartite successors to east-slavic Kieran rus and everyone else can go to hell, and refuse to take him seriously (like biden and zelensky did) and prepare to go to war. You make lovely beautiful arguments that would do wonderful in a gilded court of law - but that's not where we are.
. . . If, in the immediate wake of the disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, playing footsies over NATO membership for Ukraine (which for Russia, was as much of a red line for them as the Soviets putting nukes 90 miles off of Florida) did not instigate the Russian invasion, then I don't know what did . . .
In case you're wondering, this is what started the war - biden dangling nato in front of zelensky and zelensky angling for it, both knowing that would cross a Russian red line and trigger an invasion. That is Putin's point and Trump's - that no former territory of Russia proper could be part of Nato or the E.U.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-zelenskyy-presses-biden-on-nato-membership/a-59056776
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-zelenskyy-presses-biden-on-nato-membership/a-59056776
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
If you wanted to talk about "Russia proper" then the size of the country would barely extend beyond the 14-Century Principality of Muscovy. 95% of Russia's current territory is a conquered land. Also, NATO expansion as the root cause of the war is a straw man argument. Putin's invasion of Ukraine resulted in Finland becoming a part of NATO. This caused a drastic extension of the NATO-Russia contact line by some 800+ miles and brought the NATO-Russia boundary within ~70-mile range of St. Petersburg, Russia's second most important city. Yet, you don't hear almost anything emanating from Moscow in response to this development. And, oh BTW, Finland is also a former part of Russia (1809-1917).
Russia's borders included most of present day Ukraine (except Galicia) since the partition of Poland in the late 18th century (and "nyovorussia" (i.e., donbas, lushank and Crimea were conquered from the Ottoman well before that, and hadn't been under Ukrainian control since the middle ages)), which isn't to say that ukraine should still be part of Russia - they fought for and voted for their independence numerous times - but Putin made every clear any moves to add ukraine to nato and/or the E.U. would result in a Russian invasion. It's immaterial if the invasion triggered sweden/finnish NATO accession because Russia never cared about that - but we do know Russia cared about the east Slavic lands that had been part of Kievan rus, so it's hardly a strawman. Just because Putin's plan backfired and was not foolproof doesn't mean that his threats shouldn't have been taken seriously. When a dictator makes clear that if one does X, they will do Y (and backs that up with 100k troops on the border), we should take that seriously.
I don't need any history lessons. I know that stuff inside out, and then some. The fact that russia "cares" about the former lands of Kyievan Rus' bears no relation to the ongoing events. By this logic Mongolia has a right to care about the former lands of The Ulus of Jochi which included all of Muscovia. And what exactly does "caring" mean? We saw the practical manifestation of this care in places like Bucha, Borodyanka, Irpen', Izyum, Kupyansk, and Mariupol. BTW, I'm not sure how well you are plugged into the current situation in Ukraine, but current residents of the lands Putin "cares" about are the ones who hate russia most. Nowadays, the closer you get to the frontline the greater is hatred of Moscow. Why? Because residents of these territories feel betrayed: they indeed used to have sympathy for Russia, yet, they are the ones who got to experience all "pleasures" of the Russiky Mir. Also, I beg to differ that Russia never "cared" about Finland. Ever heard of the Winter War? The Russian invasion of Ukraine resurrected in Finns the memories of what had happened when russia attempted to "care" about them last time.
You can argue all you want but the facts on the ground remain the same: 1) Putin repeatedly warned nato accession discussions for ukraine would be a red line; 2) despite that, biden and zelensky continued to play footsies around that throughout 2021 after the Afghan withdrawal, knowing about Putin's redline; and 3) true to his word, Putin invaded after putting 100'k troops on the border for months. You can try to reason all you want with a rabid dog and dispute the many variations of the word "care," but if you have a stick at a rabid dog, all that is useless when they gnaw off your leg, and that's where we are today. Finland was decades ago and no one cares about that now and Russia never cared about Finland as much as it cared about nyovorussia, so you can continue debating these strawman, but unless you plan on raising, funding and equipping 1 million men to push Russian soldiers and their land mines back across the border, then you really have nothing to add. .
I understand perfectly what you are talking about...except that you are still failing to explain what gave putin a right to claim any red lines INSIDE a foreign sovereign state? (How would you react if India began drawing red lines inside Pakistan?) Also, the fact that you dismissing Finland's case shows that you accept at face value putin's NATO argument. If his fears of NATO expansion were genuine, he would have "blown head gasket" over Finland's accession to NATO because while prolonged discussions of NATO membership for Ukraine had been taking place since at least 2008 (actually earlier) with no visible result, Finland managed to slide into NATO at a neck-breaking speed. This provides a tangible factual evidence that for putin, it is not about NATO, but about preserving the ability to dismantle the Ukrainian statehood without suffering any major repercussions - he simply does not believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, plain and simple (I hope you can read the Russian government-controlled media in Russian language - there is a ton of evidence to that effect, and they are far more explicit with their domestic audience). Also you are completely wrong about Finland being decades ago and not being relevant - if it were the case, Finns would not have rushed to join NATO: decades may have passed but the heinous nature of the muscovite regime is still the same. To be completely objective though, I agree with you on one point: by pussyfooting around the issue of NATO membership without doing anything to implement it, Biden did place Ukraine in an untenable position. You either let them in as quickly as you let the Finns in, or you declare that the Ukrainian membership in NATO is not on the table. But that would undermine the standing NATO policy of open doors for democratic nations of Europe; in case of Ukraine, it would also look like a gigantic betrayal since this would consign Ukraine to living in the shadow of the muscovate satrapy and denying it a right to chart its own national course. (I'm not even mentioning that it was thanks to the US, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for a useless piece of toilet paper AKA the Budapest Memorandum.)
It doesn't matter who or what gave him the right. we're talking about realistic on the ground situations, not a court of law. If you want to sue him in icc and enforce the judgment be my guest, but in the real world, for better or worse, might makes right and there's nothing you can do about it unless you've got a million-man army armed to the teeth, or if you want to pay for that. You're looking for consistency in Putin's thinking and you won't find it except he seems to think Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are the tripartite successors to east-slavic Kieran rus and everyone else can go to hell, and refuse to take him seriously (like biden and zelensky did) and prepare to go to war. You make lovely beautiful arguments that would do wonderful in a gilded court of law - but that's not where we are.