Ukraine crisis - in the end largely the fault of the "West"

To make one thing clear right at the beginning: I'm neither a Russian, nor am I'm fan of Putin, nor am I some kind of "propaganda troll" as there are unfortunately countless times milling around in www nowadays!
I have many criticisms of Putin, but in spite of all the criticism one must not simply push the objectivity and the facts ... no matter how uncomfortable they may be ... otherwise it just becomes ridiculous, unbelievable and hypocritical!

The current crisis, even some real threat of war, has a long history dating back to the 1990s. Back then, when it came to German reunification, it was a long point of discussion whether Germany should or should continue to be a member of NATO or whether it should become neutral. Ultimately, the US Secretary of State at the time gave Gorbachev a clear promise that NATO would not expand any further to the east than the eastern border of what was then the GDR, i.e. the border with Poland and what was then Czechoslovakia. This was discussed back and forth for a long time, but in the end it was agreed that only troops from the German armed forces, but not from NATO allies, may be permanently stationed with bases in the territory of the former GDR ... and that is still the case today!

The accession of the Eastern European countries to NATO was not yet an issue, apart from the fact that the Warsaw Pact still existed at this time, at least on paper. Later, when this topic became vacant, it was Yeltsin for Russia during his visit in Poland who gave the permission that they become member of NATO, but NATO, and above all the USA, put the brakes on it.
At that time, Yeltsin had completely different domestic political problems than worrying about NATO's eastward expansion. Also, on behalf of Russia, Yeltsin had no problem with Ukraine's cooperation agreement with NATO. Yes, even more ... in 2000, in a TV interview, Putin himself did not rule out Russia's membership in NATO! Neither Gorbachev nor anyone else, including the then military commander-in-chief of the Warsaw Pact, Marshal Jasov, speaks of a broken promise by the West regarding NATO's eastward expansion!
THESE FACTS should please all the "Pro Russians" and the Kremlin with Putin please also consider, especially those who are referring to a broken promise from the USA! The facts say otherwise!

After that, specifically when George W. Bush took office in 2001, the complete relationship changed bit by bit to the new cold war that we have been having for a long time and where war is even threatening because of Ukraine! The reason for this ... no, the fault lies mainly with the West, especially with the USA, but also with the European NATO allies, as well as with the EU! It can be summarized in 3 main points:

1. Treatment with Russia
With the fall of the USSR and the chaos and troubles that came with it, including Russia's economic hardship, the West's treatment of Russia became more and more disrespectful! The perspectives, the opinion, the desires, let alone the will of Russia were no longer of interest to anyone, and Russia was made to feel that! Yes, there are even clear signs that in the back ranks of Western governments, the cold warriors of yore wanted to make Russia suffer for more than 40 years of "cold war" with the USSR.
Sure, Russia was also (conventionally) not as strong militarily as the USSR once was, and certainly not economically at all, but Russia was and is the largest nuclear power after the USA... and consistently able to destroy the USA just as nuclear how the US is capable of nuclear annihilation of Russia. It doesn't matter whether you can destroy the opponent 3 times or 5 times, once is enough, isn't it?
In short, Russia's pride was more than drastically hurt under the weak Yeltsin, and even when Putin came to power, this western behavior continued! But... Putin isn't Yeltsin and I think even the dumbest idiot in the West has figured THAT out today!
Putin has managed - to put it briefly ... economically and militarily - that Russia has regained its pride and is in a position to stop putting up with all the impertinence! Exactly THAT doesn't please and like the West!

Ah...a small example of the Western pinpricks, although the pin here was already massive!
Do we remember George W. Bush's anti-missile screen in Eastern Europe in 2007? Supposedly not directed against Russia, but against the evil threat of Iranian missiles and North Korean missiles in Europe!
Ridiculous and a blatant lie! Only those who believe in Santa Claus to be real believe this bullshit!
Here the Link to one of the media reports of that time as example...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bush-shield-idUSWAT00833920071023


2. Topic "Sphere of Influence"
Every major power, currently the USA, Russia and China, has its geopolitical - strategic - economic sphere of influence!
This sphere extends to the immediate neighboring countries, sometimes also to entire regions. But what does that ultimately mean at the end of all discussions?
The sovereignty of the states concerned, which is often diplomatically and contractually secured, ends precisely when this is against the interests of the world power in question.
It's just not just an undeniable fact, there are countless examples of it... and the current crisis in Ukraine is just one and the latest of them!
The really sad, even shameful thing about the Ukraine crisis is the total hypocrisy of the West on the question of Russia's sphere of influence!
Not only, but especially the USA are unfortunately the "world champions of hypocrisy" when it comes to such things, because before the USA has even the slightest right to accuse Russia of this, as is currently the case, the USA must first look in the mirror at their completely similar actions . Unfortunately, that is unpleasant and who likes to do unpleasant things?
The list of actions where the US gave a damn about the sovereignty of other states in its immediate sphere of influence - Central and South America, including the Caribbean - is very long and this behavior was not just a matter of the Cold War or can be "excused" with it ... no, this behavior already took place before the First World War and continues to take place until today, long after the end of the Cold War in 1990!

As is well known, Russia is massively disturbed by a possible NATO membership, as well as EU membership of Ukraine. OK ... then let's play devil's advocate as they say in my country and assume the following hypothetical thing:
Cuba wants to renew its old strategic alliance it had with the USSR now with Russia and Putin. In exchange for oil and gas supplies etc., Cuba allows strategic Russian military bases for the Russian Army, Air Force and Navy (this time without direct placed nuclear missiles).
Question: How would the US, how would Washington, how would the American people react?
Answer this question for yourself and then compare your answer to the Russian view of Ukraine!

3. Russian population share in Ukraine and Crimea topic
The USSR was composed of many ethnic groups and peoples, with the Russians making up the majority. No one in the USSR believed that one day it would completely fall apart and so all the nationalities and ethnicities moved across the USSR and settled everywhere. As a result, Russians are the largest minority in most former Soviet republics...including Ukraine. Overall, almost 78% Ukrainians live in Ukraine, but a good 17% are Russians, the rest are various other minorities.
The problem is that the Russian minority is concentrated in the east in the so-called Donbass and Crimea ... and here they make up at least 2/3 of the population depending on the source ... in some sources even up to 80% and more.
The further problem resulting from this is that this Russian part has no interest in connecting Ukraine to the west ... on the contrary! No matter how you judge it, it's a fact... and that's why the Donbass explicitly demanded autonomy... autonomy, not secession or even independence! But this was answered with violence by Ukraine ... verifiably! ... and then the civil war broke out!
Ultimately we have a situation here similar to that of the former Yugoslavia where the West quickly recognized the independence of Slovenia and later also of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina!
Why not here too? Because it's evil Russians who are opposed to the West?
If that is the reason, then the West has reached the peak of insolence and hypocrisy!

Crimea is a special case, mainly because of Sevastopol and the mega important naval base, but also because of the more than clear majority of the Russian population.
Crimea was conquered by Russia around 250 years ago and was part of the Russian Soviet Republic until the early 1950s. Under Krushchev in the USSR ... Kruchchev is an Ukrainian! ... Crimea was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic for administrative reasons. At the time, of course, no one had even remotely anticipated that the USSR would eventually fall apart in future.
After the end of the USSR, Yeltsin actually wanted well reasoned Crimea back for Russia, but under pressure from the USA, his weakness and because of the unclear question of the nuclear weapons stationed in Ukraine, he allowed himself to be fobbed off with the solution of a "leased Sevastopol" (in return handed over Ukraine all nuclear weapons of the former Red Army to Russia).

For me personally, the occupation of Crimea by Putin is only the correction of previously made nonsense ... so completely justified, also because at least 80% of the population was and is Russian!
So I have no sympathy for this hypocritical howling about the occupation and the idiotic sanctions in the West!
To put it bluntly and unequivocally: Crimea was conquered by Russia 250 years ago, it belonged to Russia and after idiotic stopovers it now belongs to Russia in the right way again!

 

Maybe all Putin is doing is jacking up the price of oil to enrich the Russian government and himself????

 

What I am curious about is are the 100,000 plus troops he has on three sides of Ukraine sleeping out in tents in the frigid Winter weather?????

 

Of course, a low oil price does undoubtedly hurt Russia's economy...but that's a minor of interest for Putin at best.
No ... this time it's about a clear sign from him that "enough is enough"!
He has made clear demands and despite all the "fabric softener" reaction and howling in the West about Ukraine's sovereignty and she can decide for herself whether she becomes a member of NATO or not ... his demands are quite justified.
As I wrote... will the US would accept a renewal of the Cuban alliance with Russia and Russian troops in Cuba? Or another example... would the US simply accept Venezuela's alliance with China and then Chinese forces in Venezuela?
Hardly, and to hell with the sovereignty of Cuba and Venezuela when US interests are at risk... so why should Russia just let Ukraine go?
As for the winter ... these are Russian troops, they do this every winter in exercises!

 

@Mandelus 100% the fault of the West. Starting with NATO Expansion in the 1990's and ending with the Obama/Biden/Nuland 2014 Coup in Ukraine. The genocide committed by the nationalists since 2014 is just a daily reminder to Russia. A 'rebalancing' will soon happen.

 

Russia already has the largest land mass country on the face of the earth with an ever shrinking population, why they want to control the largest country in Europe, also with a shrinking population, is beyond me.

 

Sorry, but not correct. The NATO Expansion in the East of Europe was agreed by Yeltsin by proof as I wrote and so agreed by Russia to be OK!

About the rest ... please no silly propaganda war. You tell about genocide since 2014 and of course were evil things done against Russians in Donbass ... but by proof also by Russian separatists against Ukrainians. War is hell and hell is given on both sides mate.
I blame neither the Ukraine, nor the Russian separatists here for any crimes they have done both by evidence ... I am neutral and back on facts

 

Are you American? Sorry, I can't see if or if not ...
Let us say you are ... are you willing to have 100,000 Russian troops in Cuba not 100 miles away from US soil ... or let us say in Mexico if Mexico wants an alliance with Russia after Trump messed them up with the border wall bullshit?
I don't think so ... and the USA is also not a small country, isn't it?

 

Basically the gist of the OP seems to be that Russia has a side and a case to be made. That's reasonable enough, but I shouldn't have to go to an internet forum to find that. I've heard no one on TV news (American to be specific)trying to explain the Russian side of the case. As far as American media (and American politicians mostly), it's all about war mongering Putler, trying to take over the world.

 

The US didn't put the brakes on it at all. They came in 1999 at a NATO summit in DC.

There were never any serious discussions of Russia joining NATO.
You also seem to be forgetting all the Russian broken promises with the Warsaw pact countries and NATO about moving out and moving their equipment out.
You can go on all you want about US hipocracy (and you would be right....on some) but the whole position of Russia being the victim here is ludacris.
You seem to want it both ways with saying that Russia wanted to be a member of NATO and at the same time saying "enough is enough". Sure, the US (as a super power) does spread it's "sphere of influence" to protect it's interests but let me know when that had us putting hundreds of thousands of troops on the borders of said countries like now with the Ukraine.
Russia (Putin) is desperate to not be left behind the US and China. THAT is the whole thing in a nutshell. They have some military might but the don't have the economy to be what the USSR was.
On the one hand you point out the ability of both countries to wipe out the other many times over yet you ignore that fact when you make a case about Cuba having nukes put there by Russia. Do you think that's the same as Ukraine having nukes (don't they have Soviet left over nukes?). The US would let Ukraine have missiles as a defensive deterrent because there are enemies at the gates........Cuba doesn't have that situation so the comparison is false.

 

Except for the failure to mention Ukraines nukes. Ukraine had Russian nukes but the west told them to give them up or they would withhold economic aid. Ukraine agreed on the condition the west would protect them from Russian aggression. So in effect it’s not just that NATO expansion east is what caused Russian security interests. That’s BS. What happened was Russia became an aggressor and stole Ukrainian land. Making it so Ukraine turned to the west for support and to withhold its promise from the 90s to protect them.

 

situations change and policies must change with them.

in 1990 the ussr was falling apart and the usa was in a better position to keep such promises.

it is 2022, russia is now the world's only remaining superpower and the usa is weak, divided, bankrupt and very far away. war is expensive. can you imagine modern americans rationing or enlisting for this?

i am not convinced that this ukrainian government is worth it. and i certainly don't want to send americans to fight, yet again, for oil and wall st. .

 

OP is tldr ... BUT!

Why would America give a **** about what Russia/Putin wants or what their side of it is. We've pledged to help the Ukraine against the BULLY Putin. I don't want to see 1 AmeriCAN troop lost over this nonsense, so I stand by the decision to move troops into Poland and Romania, and air assets from England and Germany closer to Ukraine. We have 8500 troops on standby in the U.S. and 6000 in Europe. People, I've discussed this with are asking, "how much this costs to have those troops at the ready ... NOTHING; they have to be somewhere and they have to be trained. If nothing comes of this, as we all hope it will, then we couldn't "war game" a better exercise for our readiness. I think we should deploy every available troop we can and urge our NATO allies to do the same. A strong show of force is the best insurance we can take out to be sure NO AmeriCANs die over Vladimir Putin's horseshit bullying.

We only have to look at WW II to see what trying to placate a bully got us. We need to stand up to Putin NOW, before he takes what he want's from Ukraine and moves on to this next conquest, stronger and more emboldened. IMHO.

Normally I stand AGAINST war, but IMHO the best way to end this war is to stand up to Putin's bullying now.

The US Military is far from weak. We are at odds interally but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't stand strong against our most steadfast adversary since WW II.

 

That's true ... the Western Media in sum is mostly / rarely not taking a neutral look on the issue including the Russian point of view and how well or not this is. But also I must say that the "Pro Russian Media" is full of Bullshit Propaganda an lies too ...

So difficult for truth at least!

 

Well I don't see pro Russian meda, at least across my news feeds, so I can't comment on how full of BS they are, but I assume Russia has never stopped the propaganda mill.

 

So 9 years until they decided that they can become a NATO member and this is not putting brakes on it?

Sorry, there were discussions! You forget the forestep of the Russia - NATO partnership once? How serious at least ... well ... it depends on both sides, means how serious Russia wanted to become a member and how serious NATO wanted them, isn't it?

You're forgetting a lot of facts here! When did the USSR Red Army withdraw from the former Warsaw Pact countries?
It happened mostly after the USSR fell apart and with it the Red Army! Don't forget what happened to the Red Army units... they were divided among the successor states and each unit was anything but ethnically pure Russian, pure Ukrainian, pure Georgian, pure Kazakhstan, pure Belarus... Soldiers came from all republics !
Furthermore, wasn't it the member states themselves that saw the Red Army in their country as a kind of occupying power and would rather have it out yesterday than today? That's exactly how it was!

Mostly USA have no need to place 100,000+ soldiers for issues in their frontyard ... and there is fairly any possible opponent with a population of 40 million people and a strong army as the Ukraine has!

Cuban Missile Crisis 1962 - The USA had previously stationed nuclear-tipped missiles on the territory of their ally Turkey and thus directly on the border with the USSR.
In return, the USSR is also stationing nuclear-tipped missiles on the territory of its ally Cuba and what happens? Kennedy brought the world to the brink of nuclear war!
Didn't Russia have the same rights as the US here? Anyone who says here that Russia doesn't have them is just being hypocritically ridiculous!
1983 invasion of Grenada - an approximately 155 square mile Caribbean island allows itself to make a political shift to the left - very bad! As a first reaction, the USA had the International Monetary Fund and other credit institutions turn off the island's money supply in order to bring it to its knees economically. When Grenada was then forced to look further left for help from Cuba and the USSR, over 7,000 heavily armed US soldiers + thousands more on ships marched in and showed the island that this was a bloody stupid idea. Grenada's sovereignty? Not interesting for Washington!
Panama 1989 - First they bring Manual Noriega to power with the help of the CIA, give a damn that he is a brutal dictator and also involved in drug trafficking - the main thing is that he is a staunch anti-communist like all the many other "El Presidente" by the Grace of Washington in Central and South America. But then this Noriega began to evade Washington's will more and more and became so outrageous that he sometimes answered "No" to the USA. That, coupled with the imminent handover of the Panama Canal (1999)... where Noriega had the audacity to be negotiating with Japanese builders for modernization rather than hiring US builders, cooled things down even more. Reagan and Bush suddenly realized that Noriega was working with the drug cartels... what a sudden realization... and then, after losing the election, he put himself back in power and hatred increased. Then Washington stopped having fun and over 27,000 US soldiers attack Panama... funny if only Panama had a lousy armed militia and the NYPD could have done the job with some hardware borrowed from the Army!

More examples of issues where the US people are fine with and see no bad thing in it in their hypcrisy?

Regarding Cuba and the nuclear missiles, I wrote something above ... you forget the US missiles in Turkey before!
And never underestimate Russia and its military. This is not the Red Army 2.0 ... the Russian armed forces are now structured completely differently and are also much better equipped and trained.
And your "there are enemies on the gates" ... doesn't that also apply to Russia if you look at it from the other side?
Tell me why Bush Jr. had to plant his Anti Missile Shield in Eastern Europe at the time... the lie about it being because Iran believed and only idiots believe. What had Russia done here to make this necessary? Nothing is the answer!

 

Nah ... please clean a little bit about this hell of Russian Bullshit propaganda like in RT, Voltaire and so on.
First of all, when was decided that Eastern Europeans can become NATO member? In 1999, so 9 years later!
And don't forget that the former Russian President Yeltzin told that it is OK that they become a NATO member ... so what promise was broken please, when the Russian President don't stand on the alligated promise of once anymore?
That this fact s suddenly ignored in Russia tells much ... and it does not matter that you now don't like this decision of Yeltzin once!

 

Try for one of many example Russia Today or in short RT named ...
And Propaganda is in Western Media also always given!

 

Well ... First of all, the Russian military isn't weak either...even if the US media likes to claim otherwise and many Americans like to believe it. As I wrote in another answer, the Russian military is not "Red Army 2.0" ... they have totally changed in everything, modernized and also changed in training and tactics. In short: Never underestimate your (possible) opponent and believe bullshit reports about his oh so big weakness!

Then there is also the question of who the real bully is here. Too many Americans didn't stop getting the cold war out of their heads after 1990 and to this day prefer to see Russia crawling in the dirt... and that's made very clear in their whole behavior to the Russians. Why does the war criminal Bush ... war of aggression without reason against Iraq in 2003 does not make him any better than Hitler against Poland in 1939 according to international law, even if you may be upset now because of these words and the comparison I have ... in 2007 in Eastern Europe without place an anti-missile screen on every occasion - allegedly against evil Iran, which was and is an outright lie?
Ask yourself that... and how you have to evaluate something like that from a Russian point of view!
Putin has not stationed a soldier here against Poland and the Baltic States, only against Ukraine! But that NATO takes the whole thing seriously and that troops are stationed is OK for me too, but nothing more!

 

Where in all of this is consideration for the right of a sovereign nation to decide for itself what alliances are in its best interests?

 

I read that far, and I'm sure you're right, as I'm sure our American Military Command would take a conflict with Russia very seriously ... and promptly stomp the living **** out of them ... IF it comes to that.

BTW, I disagree that the "Ukrainian" problem is "largely the West's fault". But the USA and our NATO alies will stand for freedom and for those that want it. Especially if it means standing up to a bully like Putin.

 

I've just been reading an interesting article in Time suggesting Putin's threats are in retaliation for Ukraine's crackdown on his longtime friend and political ally in Ukraine, Viktor Medvedchuk. Vik was charged with treason (he heads the largest opposition party representing Russian interests). The government has taken TV stations Vik controls off the air (no more Russian propaganda) and seized an oil pipeline he owns bringing Russian oil to Europe. Vlad is miffed.

 

I'm sorry but argueing who is the bully between Russia, and the United States is kind of like judging a beauty contest between Bernie Sanders, and Rudy Giuliani.

It's a machiavellian contest for influence, and strategic advantage. There is little to be done but let the game be played, and see the result.

 

Who says it was 9 years? Only you and your ASSUMPTION (far from fact) that Yelstin "agreed" to it. He had a lot more pressing problems at the time. NATO wasn't at the top of his list. If you have facts to prove otherwise, please, feel free to shine.

So what are you saying now? Did Russia want to be part or not? The answer is not.

Ok, now you're all over the place trying to justify your claims.....and you're wrong. After the break up there was the Treaty on Conventioal Armed Forces which Russia skirted the rules on and then the Adapted Conventioal Armed Forces Treaty in 1999 and, again, Russia didn't really hold to the bargin.

The Cuban Missile Crisis - The USSR (not Russia) blinked. Did they have a right to put missiles in Cuba....Yes. Did we allow it....No. What's your point? We had a right to have missiles in Italy and Turkey (spoils of war). Did the USSR like it.....No, but they didn't try to stop it. We did
The other examples are fine as far as accuracy but they have nothing to do with Russia or the Ukraine situation going on now. They are simply examples of the US looking out for their own interests. Good or bad really doesn't matter. Do you equate an invasion of Ukraine with these two examples? Apples and oranges.

What country has troops amassed to invade Russia? No, it doesn't apply. Russia is going on the offensive. All the other examples you put up are defensive. Big difference.

 

Are you serious or kidding now? Read for your own ...
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/26/world/yeltsin-understands-polish-bid-for-a-role-in-nato.html

And if you will now come that this is a fake news NY Times article ... what will let you look like an idiot ... then take your time and use google or whatever and you will for sure find even the TV interview with Lech Walese where Yeltsin did say that!
Polands intention to become a member of NATO goes by fact back to 1990.... and when did Poland become member of NATO, eh? On March 12, 1999 together with Hungary and Czech Republic!

So what is now with the 9 years? Prrof delivered! What you do now with this proven truth and fact is your issue ... but it does not change the facts I named, only because you don't like them!

Read by your own and keep then in shameful silence:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/stone-interviews-putin-says-asked-russia-joining-nato

Only 3 of many many many examples!

Nonsense! There was pure Wild West about all Red Army units and in special for their equipment coming from the Ex Warsaw Pact members back, as well about these Red Army units placed all over accross former Soviet Republics about question who will get them!
To put in above ... try to find out for yourself about all the nuclear weapons of Red Army placed in Ukraine and what happend to them and why etc.

So it was OK for you that Kennedy played with the fire by getting a nuclear war? Are you kidding? And the USSR did not blink btw ... you forget the secret agreement in the stiry that the US missiles in Turkey where also removed after the USSR removed theirs on Cuba, eh?

So ... it is OK and "apples" when the US give a damn on sovereignity of other countries when it is against the US interest ... but it is not OK and "oranges" when others like Russie do the same? ROFL ...

Shall I come with Iraq 2003 as further example?
This was a war of aggression by the letter of international law...as something for which after World War II the Nazi leaders were also condemned alongside the Holocaust in Nuremberg - planning and carrying out a war of aggression = crime!
And this lie about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction is just as much a lie in terms of justification as the alleged attack by Polish soldiers on the Gleiwitz radio station in Silesia, which Hitler cited as a pretext for the attack on Poland (and where actually Polish-speaking SS members carried out the attack on made the radio station in Polish uniforms).

And don't even start with the point that the WMD issue was correct and true. It has been proven multiple times that this was a lie and only idiots and incorrigibly ignorant trolls still believe this fairy tale to this day... I hope you are not one of them!
But... where are the charges against Bush Jr. for the war? Where are the sanctions against the US and all those who participated? Again hypocrisy and lies as always when it comes to the USA!