Ukraine is in the middle of two "powers" and the proper role would be one of buffer. They could even benefit from that. Unfortunately, the Russian and the USA have both tried to take that part of the board for them and the Ukrainian population is split on their loyalties.
Russian, simply can't allow more of the board, specially one part so close, to be dominated by the opponent.
Anyone that think this conflict in terms of "good" or "bad" have been drinking the kool-aid.
My prediction: A repetition of Crimea. The Donbas will be incorporate to the Russian area of influence, but not the rest of Ukraine, some noises will be done by the West about sanctions or whatever and in five years nobody will remember.
Hope to be right, because other scenarios are really scary.
One country is attacked by neighborhooding country with history of expanding into neighborhooding countries.
> Russian, simply can't allow more of the board, specially one part so close, to be dominated by the opponent.
Russian in fact could allow that. Whether Ukraine joins Nato should be between Ukraine internal debate and Nato internal debate. That Ukraine has both opinions present does not excuse nor explain Russian war.
That's all very nice, but, unfortunately is not how the world works.
What about the Donbas region, do they have the right to decide in an internal debate?
Instead of trying to be pro-Russian or pro-West, Ukraine have lost a chance of become Switzerland and make a live getting presents from both sides. Now, I think, it's going to be split.
> Instead of trying to be pro-Russian or pro-West, Ukraine have lost a chance of become Switzerland and make a live getting presents from both sides. Now, I think, it's going to be split.
Bullshit. And yes, I am anti-Russian expansion. This is a threat to myself, my family, my friends and my kids, actually. I am very pro-western and very happy my home country managed to be nato member.
Stop paining equivalence between Russia and Nato now.
> Ukraine is in the middle of two "powers" and the proper role would be one of buffer
You are aware that Ukraine was the buffer between nato and Russia, because the two actually touch in other places quite a lot? Also, "buffer" is not predestined mandatory role for any country. Buffer is not necessary at all.
There are so many levels of wrong with what you wrote here ...
> My prediction: A repetition of Crimea. The Donbas will be incorporate to the Russian area of influence, but not the rest of Ukraine, some noises will be done by the West about sanctions or whatever and in five years nobody will remember.
And in six years Putin will grab more land again, knowing that nobody will do more than "condemn" it because everyone is afraid of the other scenarios.
You are absolutely right. However, consider now that USA invades Canada as a result of this. This is infinity worse and always unacceptable. Nobody—not even American citizens—would tolerate that.
The last time USA invaded a foreign country under a false pretense we saw the biggest protests in US history. But then I do have to admit that Bush was reelected in the next election, so perhaps you are right and I am wrong.
Given what we have seen American citizens tolerate in the past, I expect public opinion not only to support such an invasion, but for Americans to enthusiastically participate.
In fact, some redneck militia trying to invade Canada is a common trope in US entertainment (from South Park over to The West Wing, even a whole movie exists), implying that it would be pretty easy. It's played for laughs, but it adds to the desensitisation of the public opinion about such an endeavour. Consent is manufactured.
The position is understandable because Russia is playing a Grand Strategy Game in the past, and doesn't want the enemy ( NATO) to be at all their borders. Justified? Right? Humane? Absolutely not.
That is not understandable. "I don't like nato at the border, therefore I will push my border toward nato". Russian "nato is ennemy" exists, because Russia wants nato be ennemy. It prevents further expansion.
Of those two, Russia and NATO, the only expansion since the end of the cold war and the fall of the USSR was done by NATO. That's just a historical fact. Which doesn't justify anything, but explains a lot.
All that is purely academic now so, with people in Ukraine dying over this shit.
And Nato expansion was done by allowing coutries who wanted to do join Nato to go in. Yes, some of their motivation was to prevent Russia to attempt to expand again into their borders.
> All that is purely academic now so, with people in Ukraine dying over this shit.
That is not purely academic. Framing what Russia is doing now as kinda similar to Czech voluntary joining Nato is word class propaganda. It is in fact a lie.
Not sure where I compared the NATO expansion, a peaceful one, to Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. All I'm saying is that Russia, pretty much since German reunification, worried about NATO expansion to the East. And personally, I get that. After all, NATO and the USSR (along the Warsaw Pact) used to be sworn enemies for decades by then.
This escalation started decades ago, and was totally foreseeable. And yes, the discussion about the root causes, what-ifs and past errors becomes pointless once bullets fly and people start to die.
> After all, NATO and the USSR (along the Warsaw Pact) used to be sworn enemies for decades by then.
USSR was literally Russia + occupied countries. Saying it is understandable is like saying it would be understandable for Germany to attack Poland and France again, because Third Reich went that far too.
Part of the reason why the German (traditionally Prussian) military elite supported the Nazis was exactly that, the loss of previously Prussian (or German) territory. And not territory that was invaded but couldn't be held. Again, I am not defending Putin or Russia here.
Not sure where I compared the NATO expansion, a peaceful one, to Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.
Perhaps it was when you said, "Of those two, Russia and NATO, the only expansion since the end of the cold war and the fall of the USSR was done by NATO."
Some question that nobody is asking is, "what's the role of NATO?"
The historical original reason for its existence have disappeared, so what is it for now?
Putin already believes he shares a border with NATO. Ukraine is not independent in his mind. Foundations of Geopolitics explains in depth what modern Russian foreign policy is aiming for.
That would be correct belief. Russia shares border with Estonia and Latvia. If he manage to occupy whole of Ukraine, he will share border with Poland, Slovakia and Romania too.
Then invading Ukraine wouldn't make Russia getting more borders with more NATO members whose now would be very angry about russia and will do whatever they could to make things difficult?
Yes, but it wouldn't be Russian territory would it? Despite all of Putin's talk about Ukraine being Russian (bullshit by the way even if some Eastern portions seem to be more pro-Russia the Ukraine's west), I doubt Putin would make it formally part of Russia. But even if he did, the new NATO-Russia border would be further West.
