> US led NATO expansion lead to the war in Ukraine, and Europeans are paying the price.
As an Eastern European, I cannot thank the US enough for pushing NATO. It makes me feel safe. I'm just sad that they could not get Ukraine into NATO before all this madness started.
NATO doesn’t take countries with active border conflicts and for good reason. I am glad that NATO did not take Ukraine then, even if I am open to it once this conflict resolves.
I am generally not sympathetic to Turkey but I think the Cyprus issue is complicated and the former military junta, now Cyprus Republic, has given very few reasons for Turkish Cypriots to trust that they will be safe under its regime.
I also think that Western international institutions are systemically biased in favor of Greece and other more western nations, which is pretty obvious by the disparate response to Greek invasion of Cyprus vs Turkish.
The prospect of regional wars or worse makes you feel safe ?
Do you think that if Ukraine was not being courted by US that it would've been invaded like that ?
Multiple political analysts, US ones included, say that this would not have been the case.
Wars are only good for those in power, in both sides.
> Do you think that if Ukraine was not being courted by US that it would've been invaded like that ?
Invaded? Probably not. Becoming a second Belarus? Yes. Overall it would have meant a Russia - NATO border closer to me. I prefer an Ukrainian - Russian NATO border far, far more.
> The prospect of regional wars or worse makes you feel safe ?
Membership in NATO prevents regional wars, because it increases the risk for Russia. Standing alone, a country like Finland or Poland can respond only with conventional weapons, which they don't have too many considering the scale of Russian war against Ukraine. By attacking a NATO member, Russia risks with a nuclear response from other alliance members up to a global nuclear war.
Russians understand and react to power, and NATO represents that. When a Russian fighter jet intruded Turkish airspace while flying sorties in support of Assad's regime in Syria and got shot down by Turkish air defense, Russian officials came to apologize instead of ramping up the usual "we'll nuke everything!" rhetoric. Demonstrate credible force and they'll backtrack.
> Do you think that if Ukraine was not being courted by US that it would've been invaded like that ?
The premise of your question is upside down. Ukraine was courting the US to get security guarantees such as NATO membership, not vice versa. The notion that Eastern Europe had to be somehow tricked into EU and NATO is deeply misguided. Instead, these have been the main foreign policy goals for most countries in the region, the holy grail.
The alternative for Ukraine was to become an oppressive dictatorship like Belarus has become under Russian influence. That would've meant that Russia would've moved in their armed forces, installed nuclear weapons and prepared to use Ukraine as a staging ground for further invasions westwards - everything they've done in Belarus so far.
Instead of seeing Kyiv under missile attacks, we'd be seeing the same happening 1000 km westwards in Warsaw. How far towards Paris and London do you prefer to let this thing creep before tackling the problem? Until Picadilly Circus?
> US led NATO expansion lead to the war in Ukraine, and Europeans are paying the price.
This is the Russian propaganda of 2 years ago, and we know it is a lie because Putin went on camera and told us so himself. When asked by Tucker Carlson why he invaded Ukraine he gave a half hour history lecture telling us about its history of Russian occupation. Putin justifies his murderous invasion by pointing to former borders of historical Russian entities -- which by the way would not just include Ukraine but Latvia, Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and parts of Germany, Finland, Japan, Mongolia, Romania, and Poland.
Every child in Eastern Europe knows this to be the real case, and only Americans who have no serious understanding of Russian and have generally never even visited believe this hogwash about NATO.
Putin even said in 2002 that Ukrainian NATO membership was a matter between Ukraine and NATO only: "At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners."
You cannot dismiss something as "propaganda" or with a reason "Putin said so". In the same interview Putin said that if the US had not broken the promise to Gorbachev to not expand the NATO eastward, the war would not have happened.
I am not an American with no serious understanding, I live in an area that used to be Soviet Union.
Everybody knows you should not corner a wild beast.
> In the same interview Putin said that if the US had not broken the promise to Gorbachev to not expand the NATO eastward, the war would not have happened.
Yet this contradicts his statements in 2002 that it was not a big deal and not his business. He only changed positions when he viewed the Russian economy as big enough to wage war and take territory.
There was also no such promise, this is a complete myth.
Russia is doing what it has always done: try to steal more clay. They have been doing this for a thousand years, far before NATO. Russia was neither cornered nor threatened.
It seems like you are way too invested in this and unable to think clearly. I'm sorry if it has affected you negatively, it is a terrible situation for everybody except the elites.
However, blame is never black or white. It cannot be all Russia's fault.
> However, blame is never black or white. It cannot be all Russia's fault.
Most crimes are a single party's fault. One is the criminal, and one is the victim. Saying it is impossible for it to be all Russia's fault is logically fallacious. Russia chose to invade and commit mass murder. Russia needs to be held to account for that.
This is pure ad hominem. My statements are not emotional at all. Ukraine committed no offense against Russia. Georgia committed no crime against Russia before they aided Abkhazian and South Ossetian rebels. Putin committed these offenses unilaterally against these. Russia chose to steal territory and murder hundreds of thousands of people. These are not emotional statements, they are factual ones.
It is in fact your claims which are clouded by emotionality -- obvious sympathies for Russian propaganda.
> You cannot dismiss something as "propaganda" or with a reason "Putin said so".
If provided without evidence? Yes, you can. What's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> Everybody knows you should not corner a wild beast.
Nobody cornered Russia, Russia decided that it wants its old colonies back. Most of them were wise enough to long before ask NATO to protect them this time, Ukraine unfortunately had trusted Russia when it said it will honor Ukraines independence and now pays a heavy price for it.
> In the same interview Putin said that if the US had not broken the promise to Gorbachev to not expand the NATO eastward
Gorbachev called that a myth in 2014 when Putin used it as an excuse to invade Crimea. USSR's minister of foreign affairs Shevardnadze and minister of defence Yazov have said the same thing. Source, excerpt from an interview to ZDF: https://twitter.com/Jesuitchild/status/1749887239226617873
This talking point is a shining example of propaganda. Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have gone as far as explaining why even in theory, such promise couldn't have been made. It's a complete fabrication.
