Right. I was hoping for something a bit more independent. From all I can tell this is just the opinion of a Russian ex military officer posted on a random blog. Not a particularly great source for independent geopolitical analysis.
Assuming no bias, the author is going to be far more informed than your average news media analyst. The author’s point is more or less that the west does not understand what they are looking at. But if you look at the past few debacles in failed US military interventions, they are all caused by being misinformed.
During the Vietnam war, the US was so ill informed on history they thought the Vietnamese would join forces with China. However, Vietnam and China have had a very tumultuous past and this was never on the table - far from it. A quick reading of history would dispel those fears. Amazingly, McNamara only learned of this decades later.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US made similar errors. They thought installing a democracy would simply replace the tribal power structures Saddam had kept in check for decades. But obviously with him gone, rivalries came right back. 20 years later…
Now that’s not to say Russia is not playing the usual smoke and mirrors games to extract concessions from NATO and West. But it’s good to have this perspective before anybody gets too trigger happy.
I submit that unbiased journalists don't exist, and further, that what one expects from a journalist is a detailed analysis from an expert's point-of-view; both of these things imply bias. To make matters worse "pure" factual accounts (e.g. AP feed) are biased insofar as they remove fact from context.
Of course, it's worth knowing what the journalist's biases are, but I think this apparent quest for pure objectivism is misguided.
There are still different degrees to how much a source is biased, and I would argue that "Russian ex-military and RT commentator" is very high on the bias scale. Especially since he is from a place famous for heavy restrictions on speech, state-controlled media and disinformation campaigns.
A bit off topic but something I’ve been wondering related to the recent escalation and posturing:
What happens to Europe’s natural gas supply if there is some kind of conflict with Russia? I can’t really imagine the pipelines would just be left running as they do normally, and isn’t Europe pretty dependent on that supply for heating and stuff?
Surely the loss of income from selling their energy would be too great. Any interruption to supply would destroy confidence in supply for the future. They would be better off defining a limited area for the conflict, similar to for example the Falkland islands conflict. There was a defined zone for conflict not a general all out war.
Saudi’s Arabia’s values are in direct opposition to everything America values. Yet look at the relationship. They can even kill a US citizen journalist and get away with it.
Of course we all need it, but I am convinced that half the reason we are all pumping so much money into solar, wind, heat pumps etc is to reduce the dependency.
Russian would still be crazy to kill that golden goose any sooner than it has to.
If a country like Germany merely wanted to reduce their dependency on Russia, they'd frack. They have like 2 trillion cubic meters of gas down there. They have elected not to use it.
> Saudi’s Arabia’s values are in direct opposition to everything America values
Minor correction: to everything America says that it values.
Actions speak a lot louder than words, and the rest of the world doesn't believe anything America says any more. Torture camps, mass surveillance, economic espionage, illegal wars - you know all this.
Ukraine is not part of NATO and US/EU have no interest in fighting.
Instead the most severe set of financial sanctions, possibly ever seen, will be implemented e.g. disconnecting Russian banks from SWIFT. And we saw in Iran these measures do work to severely harm the economy.
However, if you have a potential weapon and you decline to use it because having done so it will be expended and useless to you, you also need to consider that it might become obsolete and thus anyway useless despite going unused.
Over time Europe intends to move to more renewable sources, not only for electricity generation and heating, but in industry too. So the value of this bargaining chip may be reduced over time.
Anticipating the future is difficult. But it seems unlikely that Germany will become even more dependant on Russian gas in say, 2032 than today, so, this seems like as good a time as ever to threaten.
This is a key reason Germany has been reluctant to take a stand on Russia's escalating adventurism. Indeed, Nord Stream 2 was meant to protect this arrangement from Ukraine.
That said, imports of liquefied gas via tanker are possible, if you have the infrastructure to receive them.
The pipelines, and other trade, operated without a glitch during the later years of the cold war. It's not unrealistic for that to continue, as both parties would probably prefer.
I'm also getting the sense that the reliance on Russian natural gas is somewhat overstated at times. Only about 1/3 of the gas supplies of Europe come from Russia. That's a lot, but it is not unthinkable to compensate for in case it is lost. Between increasing local production, replacement with other fuels, or improvements in energy efficiency, it would be annoying but doable. For Russia, however, it would be financially devastating both in the short term as well as into the future, since Europe as a market would be lost for good once they achieve independence of this fuel source.
US and EU have been preparing for this for some time.
They expect that if Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will be dead and they will weaponize natural gas supply. So emergency gas supplies will be coming from Netherlands, US etc in accordance with their action plan:
Mainland pipeline gets cut off the moment Poland decides to do anything, like in Georgia 2008 when Polish president mobilized 'presidents of Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and the prime minister of Latvia' to organize poblic manifestation of support in Tbilisi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Internation... He famously overrode his own staff to fly over an active war zone to get there. There is even a conspiracy theory about his death in a plane crash over Russia two years later being a retaliation.
Nordstreams connecting Russia directly with Germany means Germans not only wont do anything, they will actively torpedo any support initiatives in the name of "stability".
I don't even think anyone is interested in the POV that nothing is happening. Russia itself certainly wants to at least appear as if they are preparing for an invasion, or the whole thing makes even less sense.
His point is the (apparent) lack of supply activities to the air force depots. No modern warfare would be waged without air support, so they _have_ to prepare over there. Overall, a quite reasonable point to make.
But you could hide it really really well, the information about these preparations could be known by lots of people and we, the readers simply be oblivious to it. Overall, I agree with the thesis, but not the conclusion.
I don't think the concern is some sort of cold war era major offensive where Russian tanks storm forward and take territory. The modern approach seems to be stirring up local trouble/guerrilla warfare/slow escalation/bringing in some (elite?) forces to bear locally to make progress. Generally with some local support.
If the author's point is something along the lines of Russia isn't set up right now for a major offensive to conquer the entire Ukraine in a week that's sort of a moot point I think? They don't need that to completely destabilize things, saw some chaos, and eventually in the medium term take over without resorting to a full scale attack.
There's plenty of examples of Russia being able to shift resources around pretty quickly. How much does it really take to destabilize Ukraine to the point where they'll get invited in?
> I don't think the concern is some sort of cold war era major offensive where Russian tanks storm forward and take territory.
The concern explicitly cited by the US government is exactly a major ground offensive, quite likely launched within the next month, following the recent escalation of cyber attacks and with the notional justification provided by a false flag action engineered by Russia for the purpose.
What would be the motivation for American/European officials fabricating a story about the Russian military escalating the war in Ukraine?
I don't think this article is credible, but my question above is asked in good faith. There do seem to be informed people who doubt the veracity of American claims of increasing Russian hostility.
Sorry, I hit submit before realizing it might seem rhetorical. I've updated it to clarify that no, it was not purely rhetorical, even though I doubt the veracity of the claims in the article.
To portray a peaceful Russia as the villain so they can increase their influence in the region? Depending on your viewpoint you can come up with some motivation. And this is also not completely false, ofcourse all these guys are constantly "fighting" for influence in the region. The west prefers to influence via economic means and Russia can't compete in that game so they're changing the game. Perhaps if there was more of a win-win strategy there it might be more successful though hard to say what Russia (given it's political climate) would count as a win.
Sure, but to what end? The posture of the current government of Ukraine is quite pro-EU, and the people of Ukraine tend to agree (although I suppose one could argue that these surveys are biased?).
Tinfoil hat on: Evil plan of the US to destabilize Europe and Russia, to cause turbulence in the region to sell some weapons to the allies, get rid of Putin in the process, weakening China by proxy of weakening Russia's focus/them having to spend energy on the armed conflict. Asserting the position of no 1 in the geopolitical world.
> In this regard, it is worth recalling the recently announced position of the US State Department. US agency spokesman Ned Price said that the US administration expects Russia to provide clarifications on military exercises in the west of the country or completely stop them as part of the de-escalation of the situation around Ukraine.
I'm a Ukrainian living in the US, but these ^ kind of things have always made me curious. What's the US's business? I mean, it's Russia's territory. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is bordered with the United States. Training is happening on the Russia's territory, so, in theory, they can do whatever the hell they want. The US is on the other side of the globe. Why do they have an opinion? Why should any other country even care about what the US thinks or recommends, let alone explain anything? I obviously don't want my country to get into a full-blown war with Russia, but just curious about the US's business in this whole situation.
There are probably various (good or bad) economic reasons for the interest, but the fact that NATO borders both Ukraine and Russia is probably a big part of it.
I don’t think the U.S. gives a honest fuck about Ukraine per se. If Russia has a free ticket to invade Ukraine that establishes casus belli to invade pretty much all other former soviet states. Plus, Russia itself is drumming it up to get US attention. They want NATO to scale down. They want US assets to be outside its “sphere of influence”. They know pretty well that the west doesn’t have any appetite for a war with Russia at the moment. The threat of invasion is a mere bargaining chip to get its demands.
I cannot find a casus belli in that regard, either. While the Ukraine is supported by the West and has some multilateral agreements and contracts with it, it's not part of NATO or the EU, while a lot of the former soviet states are. Russia declaring open war against NATO or EU is not something Putin is stupid/narcissistic enough to do.
A lot of the former soviet states outside of the NATO and EU sphere are furthermore already defacto under Russia's thumb, so there is little incentive for Russia to invade, and NATO/EU/US who could invade wouldn't either because they lack the ground to justify this internationally and/or to their own populations and really would have very little gain from it. Aside from recent (partially) failed campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the West in general considering China the bigger threat anyway, all of which would make any politicians think trice about invading former soviet states.
If Russia invaded the main Ukraine, things would still get pretty "interesting". It might push the Baltic states and even Poland over the edge, in turn resulting in a NATO and EU casus foederis, and open war against Russia at worst. An invasion of the Ukraine by Russia thus could become a casus belli, just in the other direction.
Largely that Europe is relatively small and can be traversed quickly by mechanized armor, as Nazi Germany showed in WW2. The U.S. is worried that an aggressive Russia could quickly roll over Poland, Germany, and France, conquering all of Europe in short order. Having Ukraine be NATO-aligned means that any such war preparations would have to start from Russia itself instead of Ukraine, which adds an additional 500 miles. Crucially, this is just about the combat radius of a modern airplane, which means that if Ukraine is NATO-aligned, a war in Europe could not get Russian air support until they rebuild airfields in conquered territory, while if it is part of Russia, Germany/Italy/Austria/Czechia/Croatia/etc are all within range of Russian airstrikes.
Basically it comes down to mistrust. I suspect that thinking on the Russian side is symmetric, and they don't actually have any plans to attack Western Europe but are worried that a NATO-aligned Ukraine could be a base for Western aggression against Moscow.
...And then that relates to another issue. For the average citizen, rules are rules, borders are borders, and why would you want to attack another country that's minding its own business? For rulers of these countries, rules are just guidelines, and the only thing that matters is power, because how do you think they got to be rulers of those countries in the first place? They're the ones that make the rules, after all, so of course the rules are mutable. And that's why military & political leaders worry about things like balance of power, because at that level power is what determines what does and doesn't happen.
Off topic, but you just reminded me of the classic game Balance of Power, by Chris Crawford. He has some very interesting thoughts on global political power plays that definitely influenced me as a 20-something.
Collective self-defense in the presence of indications of aggressive action by Russia which appears to be rapidly approaching imminence; the US (and other partners of Ukraine) are communicating how Russia can do to show that that appearance is in error if, in fact, it is.
> The US is on the other side of the globe. Why do they have an opinion?
The US and Ukraine are security partners short of formal allies via the OSCE, NATO’s special bilateral partnership with Ukraine, direct US-Ukraine bilateral partnership, etc.
> Collective self-defense in the presence of indications of aggressive action by Russia
Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective. From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases. And THAT can also be treated as aggression. Unless I'm missing something, but despite me being a Ukrainian, I kinda understand why Russia is doing what they do.
> Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective
You asked what the US interest was, that is a question about the US perspective.
> From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases.
So?
Even assuming that's true, trying to expand a defensive alliance isn't an aggressive act under international law.
> And THAT can also be treated as aggression.
That's true in the trivial sense that any nation can treat anything as anything else, ultimately constrained only by the willingness of other parties to use force to constrain that behavior and the willingness of its own subject population to obey the leadership, but there's not even the beginning of an argument from international law that that is valid.
(The usual argument that it is even a cognizable wrong—and which still wouldn't make it actual or imminent aggression—is that it both violates a commitment the US made at the time of German unification not to expand NATO further East and that it would put Russia in an indefensible position and later be used to enable aggression against Russia. The first part of that, though, is just simply false: no such promise was ever made. The second part is speculative and distant.
> 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.
> Am I missing something, you are low-key justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yes, you are missing something.
> Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place.
That is simply not true. Messing with Ukrainian democracy has started on April 3, 2008, after the Bucharest Summit, with the NATO's Declaration that it welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Europe Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. That was a direct threat to Russia and they made it perfectly clear, same as the Monroe's Doctrine makes it perfectly clear that nobody, not a single country, is allowed to move military forces to the western hemisphere (say in Cuba), because it becomes a threat to the US. The decision at the Bucharest Summit led to a war in Georgia and Maidan in Ukraine. Prior to that, there was zero threat from Russia whatsoever.
Since the west keeps pushing on the NATO's expansion (which is part of their strategy, along with promoting democracy and expanding the EU), Putin gives the US two choices: either Ukraine goes back to a pre-2014 state of being a neutral player OR Russia will wreck the country. So the root cause is not Putin being out of his mind, but the aggressive US's strategy to expand NATO. Once again, despite me being a Ukrainian, Putin's strategy is perfectly clear to me.
Russia also shares a water border with the US (Alaska). The Bering Strait is "only" 83km (51mi) across; e.g. there are currently 5 bridges longer than that (all in China).
Apart from everything else: Last time Russia invaded Ukraine they shot down a civilian air plane that was travelling from the Netherlands to Malaysia (MH17). A war between Russia and Ukraine would not just affect those two countries.
Didn't Russians themselves say that they want to negotiate with nobody else but the US? I think initially they specifically said they want to avoid talking with the EU...
Military Complex thing. Afghan and Iraq winding down with huge loses to American taxpayers (meaning you) but windfall for those in weapon industries. It was suppose to be Libya and Ukraine but Barry got outmanuevre by Putin back then. Now they got their wish to do war (probably 2 simultabeously as rumor that China seems to be coordinating with Russia).
I guess we'll know in about a week, when the deadline expires which Putin's sock-puppet Lavrov has set.
And the 100.000 troops stationed near Ukraine are almost a dozen times the number claimed in the article.
I do feel a certain remorse since we've forsaken on our promise not to expand NATO towards the Russian border and have continually tried to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent with our BMD system. I also fear there's a certain amount of disinterest in the U.S. government towards the sensitivities involved. The U.S. doesn't see Russia as an equal, even though it's the only nation that can completely wipe the it off the map, which brings with it a certain degree of resentment.
> I do feel a certain remorse since we've forsaken on our promise not to expand NATO towards the Russian border
No such promise was ever made, and even Gorbachev who started the myth by saying he felt tricked by the West when NATO expanded into former Warsaw Pact countries (beyond the United Germany where East Germany had been a Pact country) later specifically admitted that no promise was ever made and the issue of potential expansion beyond United Germany was never even discussed one way or the other.
67 comments
[ 97.8 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] threadMikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok - military observer, retired colonel.
Graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976),
Military Command Academy of Air Defense (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile battalion (1980–1983).
Deputy commander of an anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986–1988).
Senior officer of the Main Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988–1992).
Officer of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff (1992–2000).
Graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for the Independent (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier (2010-2015).
During the Vietnam war, the US was so ill informed on history they thought the Vietnamese would join forces with China. However, Vietnam and China have had a very tumultuous past and this was never on the table - far from it. A quick reading of history would dispel those fears. Amazingly, McNamara only learned of this decades later.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US made similar errors. They thought installing a democracy would simply replace the tribal power structures Saddam had kept in check for decades. But obviously with him gone, rivalries came right back. 20 years later…
Now that’s not to say Russia is not playing the usual smoke and mirrors games to extract concessions from NATO and West. But it’s good to have this perspective before anybody gets too trigger happy.
Of course, it's worth knowing what the journalist's biases are, but I think this apparent quest for pure objectivism is misguided.
In other words: "what is his/her bias?" is a more interesting question than "who is unbiased?".
[1] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/mikhail-khodarenok/
What happens to Europe’s natural gas supply if there is some kind of conflict with Russia? I can’t really imagine the pipelines would just be left running as they do normally, and isn’t Europe pretty dependent on that supply for heating and stuff?
Saudi’s Arabia’s values are in direct opposition to everything America values. Yet look at the relationship. They can even kill a US citizen journalist and get away with it.
Minor correction: to everything America says that it values.
Actions speak a lot louder than words, and the rest of the world doesn't believe anything America says any more. Torture camps, mass surveillance, economic espionage, illegal wars - you know all this.
And if you think that's just American leaders, I suggest you try making up a fictional country and asking Americas if you think they need to be bombed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/republican-v...
Not flaming. Just keeping things real here.
Ukraine is not part of NATO and US/EU have no interest in fighting.
Instead the most severe set of financial sanctions, possibly ever seen, will be implemented e.g. disconnecting Russian banks from SWIFT. And we saw in Iran these measures do work to severely harm the economy.
Over time Europe intends to move to more renewable sources, not only for electricity generation and heating, but in industry too. So the value of this bargaining chip may be reduced over time.
Anticipating the future is difficult. But it seems unlikely that Germany will become even more dependant on Russian gas in say, 2032 than today, so, this seems like as good a time as ever to threaten.
That said, imports of liquefied gas via tanker are possible, if you have the infrastructure to receive them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_state
I'm also getting the sense that the reliance on Russian natural gas is somewhat overstated at times. Only about 1/3 of the gas supplies of Europe come from Russia. That's a lot, but it is not unthinkable to compensate for in case it is lost. Between increasing local production, replacement with other fuels, or improvements in energy efficiency, it would be annoying but doable. For Russia, however, it would be financially devastating both in the short term as well as into the future, since Europe as a market would be lost for good once they achieve independence of this fuel source.
They expect that if Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will be dead and they will weaponize natural gas supply. So emergency gas supplies will be coming from Netherlands, US etc in accordance with their action plan:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2019....
Nordstreams connecting Russia directly with Germany means Germans not only wont do anything, they will actively torpedo any support initiatives in the name of "stability".
> It is impossible to hide such preparations from modern reconnaissance means
Yes, which is why exactly everyone has noticed the massive troop concentrations on the border to Ukraine. QED.
But you could hide it really really well, the information about these preparations could be known by lots of people and we, the readers simply be oblivious to it. Overall, I agree with the thesis, but not the conclusion.
I don't think the concern is some sort of cold war era major offensive where Russian tanks storm forward and take territory. The modern approach seems to be stirring up local trouble/guerrilla warfare/slow escalation/bringing in some (elite?) forces to bear locally to make progress. Generally with some local support.
If the author's point is something along the lines of Russia isn't set up right now for a major offensive to conquer the entire Ukraine in a week that's sort of a moot point I think? They don't need that to completely destabilize things, saw some chaos, and eventually in the medium term take over without resorting to a full scale attack.
There's plenty of examples of Russia being able to shift resources around pretty quickly. How much does it really take to destabilize Ukraine to the point where they'll get invited in?
The concern explicitly cited by the US government is exactly a major ground offensive, quite likely launched within the next month, following the recent escalation of cyber attacks and with the notional justification provided by a false flag action engineered by Russia for the purpose.
I don't think this article is credible, but my question above is asked in good faith. There do seem to be informed people who doubt the veracity of American claims of increasing Russian hostility.
I'm a Ukrainian living in the US, but these ^ kind of things have always made me curious. What's the US's business? I mean, it's Russia's territory. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is bordered with the United States. Training is happening on the Russia's territory, so, in theory, they can do whatever the hell they want. The US is on the other side of the globe. Why do they have an opinion? Why should any other country even care about what the US thinks or recommends, let alone explain anything? I obviously don't want my country to get into a full-blown war with Russia, but just curious about the US's business in this whole situation.
What casus belli would that establish?
A lot of the former soviet states outside of the NATO and EU sphere are furthermore already defacto under Russia's thumb, so there is little incentive for Russia to invade, and NATO/EU/US who could invade wouldn't either because they lack the ground to justify this internationally and/or to their own populations and really would have very little gain from it. Aside from recent (partially) failed campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the West in general considering China the bigger threat anyway, all of which would make any politicians think trice about invading former soviet states.
If Russia invaded the main Ukraine, things would still get pretty "interesting". It might push the Baltic states and even Poland over the edge, in turn resulting in a NATO and EU casus foederis, and open war against Russia at worst. An invasion of the Ukraine by Russia thus could become a casus belli, just in the other direction.
Basically it comes down to mistrust. I suspect that thinking on the Russian side is symmetric, and they don't actually have any plans to attack Western Europe but are worried that a NATO-aligned Ukraine could be a base for Western aggression against Moscow.
...And then that relates to another issue. For the average citizen, rules are rules, borders are borders, and why would you want to attack another country that's minding its own business? For rulers of these countries, rules are just guidelines, and the only thing that matters is power, because how do you think they got to be rulers of those countries in the first place? They're the ones that make the rules, after all, so of course the rules are mutable. And that's why military & political leaders worry about things like balance of power, because at that level power is what determines what does and doesn't happen.
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/my-books/balance-of-power-...
Collective self-defense in the presence of indications of aggressive action by Russia which appears to be rapidly approaching imminence; the US (and other partners of Ukraine) are communicating how Russia can do to show that that appearance is in error if, in fact, it is.
> The US is on the other side of the globe. Why do they have an opinion?
The US and Ukraine are security partners short of formal allies via the OSCE, NATO’s special bilateral partnership with Ukraine, direct US-Ukraine bilateral partnership, etc.
Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective. From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases. And THAT can also be treated as aggression. Unless I'm missing something, but despite me being a Ukrainian, I kinda understand why Russia is doing what they do.
You asked what the US interest was, that is a question about the US perspective.
> From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases.
So?
Even assuming that's true, trying to expand a defensive alliance isn't an aggressive act under international law.
> And THAT can also be treated as aggression.
That's true in the trivial sense that any nation can treat anything as anything else, ultimately constrained only by the willingness of other parties to use force to constrain that behavior and the willingness of its own subject population to obey the leadership, but there's not even the beginning of an argument from international law that that is valid.
(The usual argument that it is even a cognizable wrong—and which still wouldn't make it actual or imminent aggression—is that it both violates a commitment the US made at the time of German unification not to expand NATO further East and that it would put Russia in an indefensible position and later be used to enable aggression against Russia. The first part of that, though, is just simply false: no such promise was ever made. The second part is speculative and distant.
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.
Yes, you are missing something.
> Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place.
That is simply not true. Messing with Ukrainian democracy has started on April 3, 2008, after the Bucharest Summit, with the NATO's Declaration that it welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Europe Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. That was a direct threat to Russia and they made it perfectly clear, same as the Monroe's Doctrine makes it perfectly clear that nobody, not a single country, is allowed to move military forces to the western hemisphere (say in Cuba), because it becomes a threat to the US. The decision at the Bucharest Summit led to a war in Georgia and Maidan in Ukraine. Prior to that, there was zero threat from Russia whatsoever.
Since the west keeps pushing on the NATO's expansion (which is part of their strategy, along with promoting democracy and expanding the EU), Putin gives the US two choices: either Ukraine goes back to a pre-2014 state of being a neutral player OR Russia will wreck the country. So the root cause is not Putin being out of his mind, but the aggressive US's strategy to expand NATO. Once again, despite me being a Ukrainian, Putin's strategy is perfectly clear to me.
Aha, checks out. Welcome to HN Internet Research Agency employee
And the 100.000 troops stationed near Ukraine are almost a dozen times the number claimed in the article.
I do feel a certain remorse since we've forsaken on our promise not to expand NATO towards the Russian border and have continually tried to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent with our BMD system. I also fear there's a certain amount of disinterest in the U.S. government towards the sensitivities involved. The U.S. doesn't see Russia as an equal, even though it's the only nation that can completely wipe the it off the map, which brings with it a certain degree of resentment.
No such promise was ever made, and even Gorbachev who started the myth by saying he felt tricked by the West when NATO expanded into former Warsaw Pact countries (beyond the United Germany where East Germany had been a Pact country) later specifically admitted that no promise was ever made and the issue of potential expansion beyond United Germany was never even discussed one way or the other.