Not exactly a hard prediction to make in 2015 after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. If Russia was good neighbors, Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden would have zero reason to even look twice at NATO. But know, they should've "compromised" with Russia, the famously reasonable neighbor
And he did send troops into Belarus when its citizens rejected his pet dictator.
"It would be our best interest to work to create a neutral Ukraine"
Don't forget Syria!
I guess the Trump cult never forgave Ukraine for not making up dirt about Hunter Biden.
The Ukrainian people are divided on that subject-- which is all the more reason to pursue neutrality rather than one or the other camp. Their government is about as democratic as that of the United States (which is not very), maybe even less so. But their political leadership likes to call Nazi collaborator genocidaires national heroes, integrate neo-Nazis into their armed forces-- neo-Nazis with training in and support from western countries, oddly enough. They also ban soviet symbols and flags and have laws that mandate speaking Ukrainian instead of Russian in certain circumstances. Politics there are... complicated.
If NATO has the might to invade a country with no NATO countries miles away from their border; what is the freaking benefit of having two NATO neighbors instead of three? Putin wanted NATO to promise to never accept Ukraine as a member. That's an unreasonable demand.
Of course they do. The Soviets maliciously starved them just for the fun of it.
I'm sorry, what?
Actually I disagree: it is reasonable for Russia to demand that NATO refuse to accept Ukraine. It's also reasonable for NATO to refuse that demand.
Well, I say there was a lot of real dirt against Hunter. It just didnt involve Joe. Making stuff up isnt necessary
+1
Part of me wonders what Putin's plan is, in that sense.
That's an entirely different category of national decision. Brexit would be somewhat more in the ballpark. Taking sides in a war where 40% support the other side, though? That is possible in the United States but also exceedingly rash.
Leading Ukraine along until this happens is reasonable by NATO if you assume they don't have any care whatsoever what happens to Ukraine but want reasons to condemn Russia.
This was all a diabolical plot by NATO to force a Russian invasion so they would look bad?
He's delusional, in his sick mind he thought the Ukrainian people would see him as a liberator. He straight-up telling the Ukraine Army to coup the current government. He seems like he didn't expect this much resistance
More than that, but in part. It's a consolation prize. Finding a neat rationale to exclude Russia from the European market for natural gas (and send your own natural gas by sea at higher prices) is another part. NATO (correctly) isn't actually committing to defend anyone Russia might attack for associating with them. But they're still encouraging them to associate with NATO. NATO wants places to put missiles that can hit Russian targets very quickly but they'll settle for wars that damage the reputation and possibly harm the stability of Russia and also have other useful effects for the military industrial complex-- including what Agema was referring to, which is encouraging states to join NATO, accelerating this whole dismal process. If NATO is able to sneak enough border states into NATO and place missiles all around Russia, Russia will finally be so (correctly) paranoid that we'll have a full nuclear exchange because a flock of birds flew near a radar station (and rather than having 30 minutes to make a decision on whether to respond, they have five; it is absolute madness).
