So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit, at least from the Russian perspective. If he allows NATO to continue expanding, the Russian people would justifiably be pretty upset, so he essentially is forced to take some kind of action to show that Russia has certain lines in the sand. If he lets Ukraine, their next-door neighbor, join NATO, who would trust that he actually has any kind of power to protect Russian interests? So it makes complete sense that Putin decided to invade Ukraine for the primary purpose of preserving a line of buffer states, as well as legally justify the taking of Crimea. That sends a message to other border states that Russia will not stand by while it’s regional influence is further eroded.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he was justified in attacking Ukraine, I’m merely saying he was obligated to demonstrate a show of force to retain his position of power. If he was able to get a peace agreement from Ukraine to not join NATO and to formally recognize Russian control of Crimea, I think he would’ve withdrawn. That didn’t happen, so now he’s between a rock and a hard place and needs to get significant concessions from Ukraine to retain his power in Russia.
I’m looking at the history between Russia/USSR and USA/NATO and trying to see things from their perspective. I’m not saying their perspective is correct (NATO is only obligated to actual, legal contracts), just explaining how Russians see things to understand why they think they were justified in instigating a conflict.
Once you understand why your enemy is doing certain things, you can more carefully craft a peace deal that’s mutually beneficial.
There seems to have been a set of informal assurances between the US/NATO and the USSR that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward past Germany, though there were no legally binding agreements. Russia objected when NATO expanded in the 90s, and it continued objecting as more and more countries joined NATO. This isn’t new, it’s a clearly established pattern.
So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit, at least from the Russian perspective. If he allows NATO to continue expanding, the Russian people would justifiably be pretty upset, so he essentially is forced to take some kind of action to show that Russia has certain lines in the sand. If he lets Ukraine, their next-door neighbor, join NATO, who would trust that he actually has any kind of power to protect Russian interests? So it makes complete sense that Putin decided to invade Ukraine for the primary purpose of preserving a line of buffer states, as well as legally justify the taking of Crimea. That sends a message to other border states that Russia will not stand by while it’s regional influence is further eroded.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he was justified in attacking Ukraine, I’m merely saying he was obligated to demonstrate a show of force to retain his position of power. If he was able to get a peace agreement from Ukraine to not join NATO and to formally recognize Russian control of Crimea, I think he would’ve withdrawn. That didn’t happen, so now he’s between a rock and a hard place and needs to get significant concessions from Ukraine to retain his power in Russia.
I think you’re picking when to listen to Putin to support your preconceived notion that NATO started it.
I’m looking at the history between Russia/USSR and USA/NATO and trying to see things from their perspective. I’m not saying their perspective is correct (NATO is only obligated to actual, legal contracts), just explaining how Russians see things to understand why they think they were justified in instigating a conflict.
Once you understand why your enemy is doing certain things, you can more carefully craft a peace deal that’s mutually beneficial.