• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    44 minutes ago

    Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?

    Putin literally said he wants to restore the old Russian Empire. What the fuck was thay suppose to mean, then? A joke?

    Jfc the number of people who don’t believe the terrible things Dictators say they are going to do is too damn high.

  • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I don’t understand this meme. Ukraine was more or less a neutral state before 2014 and then there was a pro-Western coup that removed the democratically elected gov and set off the violence that is still going on. That’s what drew Russia into the conflict.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      34 minutes ago

      Former President Viktor Yanukovych actually denied democracy by choosing not to sign a trade agreement with the EU, which was overwhelmingly approved of in parliament and by the public, in 2013 and he was ousted by Ukrainians. The Russians then became involved by fueling counterprotests and annexing Crimea.

      AFAIK there were no US sponsored groups, no boots on the ground, but vaguely some 5Bn USD given to Ukraine for defence between 1991 and 2014.

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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

    • wieson@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Literally leasing a very important port city (Sevastopol) to the Russian navy counts for nothing?

      That’s so much more cooperation than talking with NATO or “aiming to get closer ties with the EU”. Not to say that Russia had tons of trade deals with the EU, so does Morocco and everyone who wants something in that region.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It is allowed to make treaties with other sovereign nations.

      Or do you believe the US should invade Brazil because it is part of BRICS?

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s a very interesting take I haven’t heard of before. My understanding was that a primary reason Russia invaded Crimea was due to the oil reserves there that Russia wanted. I guess it extends beyond that.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Russia doesn’t need the Crimean oil reserves, it’s more than they wanted Ukraine to not have it. Even then, energy security wasn’t as much a motivator as was securing access to Sevastopol, a critical warm water port and the only place capable of housing the black sea fleet. Although control of that port, in turn, is largely to do with projecting energy control over a wider region.

        Russia was leasing Sevastopol from Ukraine (til 2042). It had become increasingly important to Russia’s other objectives being a staging location for supporting the incursion into Georgia, and also Russia’s involvement in Syria. Both of which are key to Russia’s broader goal of region control and energy security (not Ukraine per se).

        It may be that Russia was far more sensitive to EU membership than NATO because EU membership travelled much faster and was already outflanking them.

        In the early 2000’s, increasing ineffectiveness of the old Soviet style leadership in Georgia was bankrupting the country and making corruption rife. This was increasingly apparent to international businesses there and a student population that enjoyed (somewhat miraculously) the relatively free press in the form of TV stations critical of the regime and its corruption.

        Subsequently, foreign NGO presence helped organise and contribute to the peaceful 2003 Rose Revolution which saw the older soviet influence brushed away in favour of new democratic parties.

        The new leadership sought to put Georgia on better economic footing and in 2006 together with the EU issued a statement on the 5 year Georgia-European Union Action Plan within the European Neighbourhood Policy which was a major snub to Russia.

        Russia’s desire to maintain a foothold within Georgia subsequently provoked the 2008 Russia Georgian War over Georgia’s northern ‘South Ossetia’ region. Not only because Georgia is the gateway to projecting power into the Middle East, but more immediately because in 2006 Georgia opened the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline which cut Iran and Russia out of the picture and connected Azerbaijan oil fields up directly with EU friendly Turkey.

        Russia failed to make anyway headway with their support of South Ossetia

        In 2013, Georgia and the EU took the next step in closer alignment, an Association Agreement

        With efforts to expand influence into the Caucasus region curtailed and weakening in power to project strength over energy producing regions, Russia saw the need to secure Sevastopol as becoming critical.

        The Ukrainian parliament had begun legal alignment with the EU the same year.

        Hence in 2014, Russia took Crimea.

        (If you look at the map of EU plus Georgia, you can see how close EU alignment could be seen to have ‘provoked’ Russia to act. Though very much only in the sense that they are anti democratic and imperialist)

  • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    5 hours ago
    1. Misuse of meme format.
    2. Ungrammatical while insulting others’ intelligence.
    3. Additional relevant things happened in Ukraine 2014 than the annexation of Crimea. Do you know what they are?