sorry to go back a few pages but ive never had someone able to explain this augment to me in a way i can understand, maybe you can....how is exactly is joining NATO (i assume you mean NATO) a provocation?
my understanding has always been joining NATO just means you have support if YOU ARE attacked.....so its only a provocation if Putin was intending on invading...if he wasn't then its moot...and if he was then its justified....maybe there is nuance im missing
So, obviously it's complex, and I am of course not making the argument that Putin is justified. But this issue stems back a long time.in the 90s NATO expansion was considered as a destabilising issue in Eastern Europe, and lots of people warned against what could come of it, including people at the ratification in 1998:
"The most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War… could prove to be a mistake of historic proportions.” And this: “It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile.”
Then there were the US and German assurances given to Russia during the early 1990s, and that if Russia withdrew from their Warsaw Pact and accepted German unification, NATO would not move “one inch eastwards.” this was a fewnyears before they moved on 3 eastern European countries. So thisnis clear provocation number 1?
I mean we can argue about the level of provocation, but it's clear this was at least 1 step. Obviously as we know Putin rose to power in 99, right after this perceived deceipt.
If we fast forward to the late teens and early 20s pre war, not that im ignoring Georgia or Crimea, but they were just part of the push back from 98, as Russia werent in a position to do so initially, Putin made tons of noise about NATO troops and exercises in Ukraine, even specifically calling out a US led joint exercise that planned a nuclear attack on the Kremlin, and unplanned NATO exercises too near the Russian border.
Now, not that I would accept all these as fact, the prevailing attidues to these accusations and threats probably didn't need to be extending infrastructure in Ukraine, and when Russia starting amassing troops on its border (according to Putin to defend itself from any western attack) I'm not sure the actions taken were in mitigating circumstances.
There are many other reasons, Zelenskys incoming with pro west support, support by the far right, and promising radical change to Ukrainian politics, such as western style democracy, which of course Putin isn't a fan of, George Bush taunting Putin and promoting war with Saakashvili promises that the US and NATO would back them in conflict, the EU and US meddling in Viktor Yanukovych's downfall, and the fear of losing Sevastapol to hostile NATO forces.
There's a pattern of behaviour from Russia, since it's recovery from being on its knees in the early 90s, it repeatedly responds quickly and harshly when it perceives any threat (rightly or wrongly, whether that's 2008, 2014 or 2022. At what point can the west and NATO either learn lessons on how to avoid war, or admit that war is useful to them, and they want to extend and utilise it for profit and political cojoling.
Now a lot of this might seem like Russian propaganda, and I'm sure part of it is, but there is some honesty in history, Biden had no interest in peace seemingly, and now Trump is playing silly buggers, seemingly wanting to draw things out longer, while the world entertains Zelensky on tour, while celebrities tour the Ukrain for holidays lol.
Again, I'm not saying Putin is right, I'm saying Putin is wrong, but we must acknowledge the complexities and tensions in the area no?
www.facebook.com
www.bbc.com
www.bbc.co.uk
