While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly “neutral”, having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn’t at all to say any of this is Ukraine’s “fault”, only to point out they were not “neutral”)
Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:
"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.”
Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted."
[end quote]
It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on from the start:
“Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting any non nuclear party (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) being attacked by an aggressor (similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while “security assurance” would simply specify a promise of non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.”
It has always read “I promise pinky promise swear I won’t use military action against you but if anyone does I’m not obligated to come to your aid”.
Ukraine signed it not because they misunderstood this, but because it wasn’t their priority. They saw the nuclear weapons as a liability in themselves. They didn’t have the skill or access to maintain or control them (Moscow had always retained operational control and the launch codes) and so they just wanted rid of them. They gave them up in exchange for massive energy deals, not a defence pact.
None of this negates the initial point. Regardless of Putins feelings of insecurity, the treaty as signed. You’re right, the obbligation to adhere can be waved but the right exists nevertheless.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions? Oh Ukraine wants to join the EU zone? We’ll gosh darn it best not offend the big ol Russia. I suppose we should force all of Russia’s neighboring countries to surrender all their free will in exchange for some measure of security from the Kremlin because surely we can trust the Russians not to breach any treaties, right? Right?
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions?
You have either been on twitter too long or some other bubble if you think anything I said was “apologia for Russia’s actions”
It is their fault. Russia are belligerent assholes is what I’ve said elsewhere in this thread.
One can state facts about the historical buildup, that’s not the same thing as ascribing blame.
How else do you discuss events of history? If one misinterprets the simple examination of facts as “apologia” and “Kremlin talking points” then how do you even critically examine anything? Or do you just let your view of the world descend into cartoonish 2d generalisations?
That’s fine, and I could be mistaken, but your comments seem to select for particular facts of history and seem to omit others. You started the whole thread by repeating the talking point about Ukraine’s ascension to Europe as a threat to Putin. Cool. Was it the same case with Georgia and Tranznitztria? This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop. You know what this talking point successfully leaves out of the conversation? Ukraine’s agency and the people of Ukraine. It seems the choice is appease Putin endlessly or allow sovereign nations to direct their own destiny. I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that because Ukraine has made decisions that don’t align with whatever hell hole is left of the USSR, they now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion. It’s exhausting.
This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop…It seems the choice is appease Putin… I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that… Ukraine…now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion
I don’t mean at all to patronise you, I assume you are an intelligent person. But have you actually read the thread of posts I’ve made from the top down to here? How did you get through university making the kind of assumptions you have and be so seemingly unaware of how objective facts can be dispassionately stated? Is the habit of reserving judgement and holding things in tension unfamiliar to you? What subject did you study?
I opened my top comment on this thread saying Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault. and it is incredible how (i assume smart) people like you seem to breeze past it and then fear the worst about any comment that doesn’t say exactly what they want it to say in the exact manner they expect it, rather than taking the time to ask ‘ok, but is this unfamiliar statement actually objectively true?’
The EU expanding to Georgia is catastrophic for Putin’s plans to manipulate the middle east. as was Yanukovych stepping down, as was Ukraine planning EU alignement. you can see that right? any no point did i ever say anything of the sort that that justified the violence they then suffered. i went out of my way to state the opposite. the former general secretary of NATO said that EU progress was the “start of the crisis”. but then he also said, and I quoted him, that that does not make it Ukraine’s fault in any way. both these things can be true at the same time! at least to anyone who hasn’t succumbed to twitter-style brainrot
Yes. But you’re not adding anything new to the discourse or that we haven’t heard before. The issue is, I can’t know if you’re being intentional about it, is that sophists will take your statement about Putin feeling threatened and run with it until the night turns blue and discount everything else (especially the agency of sovereign nations). It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway. So Putin feels threatened about economic alliances on his border nations. We get it, don’t worry. Wow, how insightful.
I will point out that this precious ‘discourse’ you are referring to was in this case started by a talking goose.
It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway.
You have given away plenty of signs that you have very little experience of digesting real world theses. Maybe leave this one to those who are more well read? You don’t have to go about grumpily stomping your bad faith takes over everything that confuses and upsets you…
The EU treaties actually do have a military component much like NATO, and the “ever closer union” is actually making it a reality, with Western and Northern European militaries actually merging into blocks.
Actually the EU is a closer alliance, as NATO intervention allows for both the attacked party to not ask for aid, and the countries aiding to give as much aid as they deem necessary. The EU mutual defence clause gets triggered immediately on aggression, and requires assistance by member states with all the means in their power.
The US could technically drip-feed aid like with Ukraine, while Germany would have to send in the Bundeswehr immediately if Poland got attacked.
Putin feared the EU because it was expanding far faster than NATO. EU expansion offered valuable trade links to former soviet countries and in turn required they implement anti-corruption legislation, and in the words of NATO secretary general Robertson above “changed every aspect of society”. That’s what Putin was afraid of.
Look at what happened to Georgia.
Old soviet regime runs economy into the ground. In 2003 pro-democracy NGOs help organise a peaceful student protests that culminates in the Rose Revolution. Autocratic government out, democratic government elected for first time, immediately start plans to align with EU to recover the economy.
2006 signs joint statement with EU on economic cooperation. Also opens pipeline cutting out Iran and Russia and delivering Azerbaijan oil directly to EU friendly Turkey.
So in 2008 Russia invades Georgia’s Tskhinvali and Abkhazia regions in an attempt to destabilise the country. Fortunately this fails.
2013 Georgia signs deeper level of EU cooperation. Ukraine parliament makes legal guarantees it’ll start to align with EU.
Putin was out of time, his Caucasus route to the middle East was closing forever, economic influence via the black sea was closing off, so he grabbed Crimea. It was the EU not NATO that surrounded him.
Yeah like with rapists, I don’t really care for their reasoning. NATO is a military alliance, EU isn’t, so even if we assume that worrying about nearby military alliances is a “justified” reason to, idk, invade your neighbouring country, it still isn’t a justification, as EU is not a military alliance.
In terms of Moscow’s loss of control, the EU was proving far more effective than NATO. Like the NATO secretary general said, the EU spread represented the start of the crisis, but the invasion was Russia’s fault. Because they’re belligerent assholes…
The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014
I think the crisis technically started with a military invasion. If not that, then we could go back and forth on this to the founding of NATO and before.
While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly “neutral”, having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn’t at all to say any of this is Ukraine’s “fault”, only to point out they were not “neutral”)
In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension (source 2014 pro Russia unrest in Ukraine)
Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:
"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.”
Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted." [end quote]
Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2024/05/george-robertson-nato-why-russia-fears-european-union
And Budapest memorandum means… Nothing?
It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on from the start:
“Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting any non nuclear party (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) being attacked by an aggressor (similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while “security assurance” would simply specify a promise of non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
It has always read “I promise pinky promise swear I won’t use military action against you but if anyone does I’m not obligated to come to your aid”.
Ukraine signed it not because they misunderstood this, but because it wasn’t their priority. They saw the nuclear weapons as a liability in themselves. They didn’t have the skill or access to maintain or control them (Moscow had always retained operational control and the launch codes) and so they just wanted rid of them. They gave them up in exchange for massive energy deals, not a defence pact.
None of this negates the initial point. Regardless of Putins feelings of insecurity, the treaty as signed. You’re right, the obbligation to adhere can be waved but the right exists nevertheless.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions? Oh Ukraine wants to join the EU zone? We’ll gosh darn it best not offend the big ol Russia. I suppose we should force all of Russia’s neighboring countries to surrender all their free will in exchange for some measure of security from the Kremlin because surely we can trust the Russians not to breach any treaties, right? Right?
This is straight up Kremlin talking points.
You have either been on twitter too long or some other bubble if you think anything I said was “apologia for Russia’s actions”
It is their fault. Russia are belligerent assholes is what I’ve said elsewhere in this thread.
One can state facts about the historical buildup, that’s not the same thing as ascribing blame.
How else do you discuss events of history? If one misinterprets the simple examination of facts as “apologia” and “Kremlin talking points” then how do you even critically examine anything? Or do you just let your view of the world descend into cartoonish 2d generalisations?
That’s fine, and I could be mistaken, but your comments seem to select for particular facts of history and seem to omit others. You started the whole thread by repeating the talking point about Ukraine’s ascension to Europe as a threat to Putin. Cool. Was it the same case with Georgia and Tranznitztria? This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop. You know what this talking point successfully leaves out of the conversation? Ukraine’s agency and the people of Ukraine. It seems the choice is appease Putin endlessly or allow sovereign nations to direct their own destiny. I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that because Ukraine has made decisions that don’t align with whatever hell hole is left of the USSR, they now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion. It’s exhausting.
It is a threat to Putin!
Yes! I went into Georgia at length here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13494524
I don’t mean at all to patronise you, I assume you are an intelligent person. But have you actually read the thread of posts I’ve made from the top down to here? How did you get through university making the kind of assumptions you have and be so seemingly unaware of how objective facts can be dispassionately stated? Is the habit of reserving judgement and holding things in tension unfamiliar to you? What subject did you study?
I opened my top comment on this thread saying Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault. and it is incredible how (i assume smart) people like you seem to breeze past it and then fear the worst about any comment that doesn’t say exactly what they want it to say in the exact manner they expect it, rather than taking the time to ask ‘ok, but is this unfamiliar statement actually objectively true?’
The EU expanding to Georgia is catastrophic for Putin’s plans to manipulate the middle east. as was Yanukovych stepping down, as was Ukraine planning EU alignement. you can see that right? any no point did i ever say anything of the sort that that justified the violence they then suffered. i went out of my way to state the opposite. the former general secretary of NATO said that EU progress was the “start of the crisis”. but then he also said, and I quoted him, that that does not make it Ukraine’s fault in any way. both these things can be true at the same time! at least to anyone who hasn’t succumbed to twitter-style brainrot
Yes. But you’re not adding anything new to the discourse or that we haven’t heard before. The issue is, I can’t know if you’re being intentional about it, is that sophists will take your statement about Putin feeling threatened and run with it until the night turns blue and discount everything else (especially the agency of sovereign nations). It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway. So Putin feels threatened about economic alliances on his border nations. We get it, don’t worry. Wow, how insightful.
I will point out that this precious ‘discourse’ you are referring to was in this case started by a talking goose.
You have given away plenty of signs that you have very little experience of digesting real world theses. Maybe leave this one to those who are more well read? You don’t have to go about grumpily stomping your bad faith takes over everything that confuses and upsets you…
EU, unlike NATO, is not a military alliance.
The EU treaties actually do have a military component much like NATO, and the “ever closer union” is actually making it a reality, with Western and Northern European militaries actually merging into blocks.
Actually the EU is a closer alliance, as NATO intervention allows for both the attacked party to not ask for aid, and the countries aiding to give as much aid as they deem necessary. The EU mutual defence clause gets triggered immediately on aggression, and requires assistance by member states with all the means in their power.
The US could technically drip-feed aid like with Ukraine, while Germany would have to send in the Bundeswehr immediately if Poland got attacked.
You’re not thinking forth dimensionally, Marty!
Putin feared the EU because it was expanding far faster than NATO. EU expansion offered valuable trade links to former soviet countries and in turn required they implement anti-corruption legislation, and in the words of NATO secretary general Robertson above “changed every aspect of society”. That’s what Putin was afraid of.
Look at what happened to Georgia.
Old soviet regime runs economy into the ground. In 2003 pro-democracy NGOs help organise a peaceful student protests that culminates in the Rose Revolution. Autocratic government out, democratic government elected for first time, immediately start plans to align with EU to recover the economy.
2006 signs joint statement with EU on economic cooperation. Also opens pipeline cutting out Iran and Russia and delivering Azerbaijan oil directly to EU friendly Turkey.
So in 2008 Russia invades Georgia’s Tskhinvali and Abkhazia regions in an attempt to destabilise the country. Fortunately this fails.
2013 Georgia signs deeper level of EU cooperation. Ukraine parliament makes legal guarantees it’ll start to align with EU.
Putin was out of time, his Caucasus route to the middle East was closing forever, economic influence via the black sea was closing off, so he grabbed Crimea. It was the EU not NATO that surrounded him.
And that’s what the NATO secretary general said.
Yeah like with rapists, I don’t really care for their reasoning. NATO is a military alliance, EU isn’t, so even if we assume that worrying about nearby military alliances is a “justified” reason to, idk, invade your neighbouring country, it still isn’t a justification, as EU is not a military alliance.
In terms of Moscow’s loss of control, the EU was proving far more effective than NATO. Like the NATO secretary general said, the EU spread represented the start of the crisis, but the invasion was Russia’s fault. Because they’re belligerent assholes…
I think the crisis technically started with a military invasion. If not that, then we could go back and forth on this to the founding of NATO and before.
Them saying that is like someone who beat their wife to death saying “it all began with her having glanced at a man who walked past.”
I think on this occasion I’ll defer to how a secretary general of NATO chooses to phrase it