> Do you think that if Ukraine was not being courted by US that it would've been invaded like that ?
Invaded? Probably not. Becoming a second Belarus? Yes. Overall it would have meant a Russia - NATO border closer to me. I prefer an Ukrainian - Russian NATO border far, far more.
> So as sketchy as the whole annexation was, was it wrong?
As a Russian who generally thinks that both Russia and NATO need to back down from the pissing contests they engage in...
Yes, it was wrong. Ukraine was done wrong by it. It was not done legally. Even if it was done with respect to the doctrine of self-determinism (I generally approve of secessionist movements), it was not done correctly. There are correct means of going about secession, and the War in Donbass was not one of them. It was a thin pretense for other geopolitical ambitions.
> it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.
Unless you mean, the only way to have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been to accept Ukraine into NATO, I strongly disagree with you here.
Russia invaded Ukraine not because Russia is fearful of NATO but because Russia wished to recreate the Soviet empire. It's just plain old imperialism.
> But it feels to me that Russia really does not want to invade Ukraine.
Then they should probably stop invading and occupying Ukraine.
Or do you mean that they have succeeded in convincing you that they don't really want to invade more of Ukraine?
Maybe, I mean, they might well not want to do that right now if they can instead use the threat of doing so as leverage to get a firm commitment from NATO not to protect Ukraine in the future and to withdraw from other places in Eastern Europe, effectively committing to recognize Russia’s Greater East Europe Co-Prosperity Sphere. That would be the bigger win than anything they could get by an immediate further invasion.
> I fear that this conversation will take a drastic turn. But my view is that Russia invaded because Ukraine wouldn't backdown from joining NATO. After Russia invaded, Ukraine said it won't join NATO if Russia stopped the war. So isn't all this pain simply because Ukraine's leader (maybe backed by US?) didn't budge until too late?
Your view is entirely incorrect, we could argue all day about the different thing that Russia has used to justify its genocide of the Ukrainian people but we will never know if any of it's true because Russia will have another brand new reason tomorrow.
I do find it interesting that the initial invasion happened very soon after substantial energy deposits where found in the Donbas, which had a chance to knock out some of Russias dominance of the European energy market.
No, this is almost not at all about NATO. This is about Ukraine drifting from Russian sphere of influence to the western sphere of influence. Russia would not allow Ukraine to join EU either, even if it promised to never enter NATO.
In short, this is about making Ukraine another Belarus.
> I would be predicting Ukraine would take Belarus
I would think in modern society territorial occupation is a losing proposition. I think Ukraine (its government) is smart enough not to inflict to itself the pain of managing Belarus.
> No one wants hostile foreign troops on their border. I see parallels in Ukraine. Russia really doesn't want NATO to encircled them. We would have problems with Russian troops stationed in Toronto.
Ukraine don't want members of Russian Federation and it allies to encircle Ukraine, so we are going to liberate Belarus and take Kuban back. The only important thing for us is what WE want, isn't?
>if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application?
Euromaidan happened 2013. Putin already lost the Ukraine back then. By annexing the Crimea and sending Russian troops now he is taking the Ukraine back.
I may be mistaken but I think whether the Ukraine was actually joining NATO or not wasn't really relevant in this conflict IMHO.
>If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?
For the couples months there were negotiations. Was there a possibility to avoid the current conflict?
I think unless you're the U.S./Russian diplomat it's impossible to answer this question.
Is it? In what kind of world? I don't believe for one second that this is what would happen. Russia won't pull out until they at the very least receive a written promises from Ukraine that it won't join NATO or EU, and I don't see why Ukraine should promise either thing, or that even promising that would stop Russia from taking the entire country anyway.
> If Ukraine had agreed to be neutral (non-NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided.
This was already offered by Germany, turns out it's not really what Russia wants.
> I'm sad so many people had to die. This would have been greatly advantageous for some of those dead people not to have died in vain because we want Russia to have a quagmire.
Be great if Russia just decided not to invade instead.
> Won't happen. The Russians are likely going for all the ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine.
Yes because Russia has an infinite number of soldiers, vehicles and weapons and isn't running out of all three of those things.
> Unless I'm missing something, but despite me being a Ukrainian
Am I missing something, you are low-key justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Its funny how you twisted the whole thing to 'show' this from russian point of view.
Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place, but maybe you heard about Donbass region and all of those poor lost russian soldiers coerced into up helping Russian separatists for almost TEN YEARS!
I wonder why would Ukraine want to join Nato... hmmm it makes no sense. It must be to spite Kremlin.
> This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO.
This is really not a good take. Ukrainians didn't overthrow their government because of NATO expansion. They overthrew their government because it was a corrupt pile of shit that didn't credibly represent their interests. And make no mistake, Putin has always seen Ukraine as in integral and inseparable part of Russian culture. He was never going to allow them to govern themselves, NATO expansion or not.
> And in my opinion Ukraine needs a deal and it should have tried to keep Minsk 2. And I do not see this as colonial mindset, as Ukrainian I would think the same.
Why does Ukraine need a deal? Ukraine already has at least one international agreement that Russia signed saying they would never threaten the borders of Ukraine in anyway.
What is going to stop Russia from breaking any future deals, like they have broken deals in the past?.
What Ukraine needs is for Russia to leave because they realise that staying in Ukraine is too devastating for their country.
Evidently this the only thing Russia understands, force.
I was Ukraine, if I got NATO I would drop Crimea like its nothing. Crimea was always practically controlled by Russia anyway. And its by far the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
>It makes all sense for Ukraine to join NATO just like the Baltic countries did. There would be no war if Ukraine was in NATO.
We agree, it would be good for Ukraine if it was in NATO, but they aren't. War wouldn't have happened if they were, but they aren't.
>You don't start a war to convince another country to not join NATO.
Are you saying it shouldn't be done, or that it can't be done? Because it looks like it is happening right now, and we will see if Ukraine promises to stay neutral.
>The purpose of war is to conquer another country.
War has lots of purposes. You can conquer a country, you can destabilize a country, you can make them submit to terms.
Invaded? Probably not. Becoming a second Belarus? Yes. Overall it would have meant a Russia - NATO border closer to me. I prefer an Ukrainian - Russian NATO border far, far more.
reply