re: Is Henry Kissinger's reason for Russian invasion of Ukraine wrong?

quote:

---

It doesn't make it any more likely that Russia actually views NATO as an offensive military threat. OF COURSE that is what Russia says its primary concerns are. What else would they say? "We regret that Lenin and Khruschev gave this territory to Ukraine, and now we want it back"?

---

It is entirely plausible that Putin does believe that NATO is an expansionist threat, that NATO is not an expansionist threat, AND that Putin has an empire-building expansionist agenda. All of these things can be true at the same time.

How I see it, is Putin recognizes that Russia, while self-sufficient with regards to energy, is lacking many of the resources and industries of a modern economy. Rather than seeking to develop those domestically amid a rapidly shrinking population or to import in large numbers of young immigrants from the third world, Putin seeks to grow via territorial expansion.

In Ukraine, he can get access to more food, steel, warm water ports, and fertilizer. In Estonia, he can grab a burgeoning tech industry. In Kazakhstan, he can expand mining for rare earth materials. The other Stans offer cotton, sugarcane, and petroleum.

Putin appears to want to re-assemble the USSR in order to create a nation that can realistically compete in the 22nd century economic game outside of just holding Europe’s natural gas supply hostage.

I feel the U.S. is a likely candidate for sabotaging the Nord Stream pipeline because access to that Russian gas was a major factor driving nations to consider softening their stances towards Russia. If brokering peace no longer is rewarded by a resumption of natural gas shipments, then there is no incentive for a peace which doesn’t involve a full Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. In addition, it is American LNG exporters who stand the most to gain financially.

Putin has lost his bargaining chip because his hostage is dead. Putin’s armies have failed to collapse the government of Ukraine. As such, his best hope was to push for a favorable peace which would leave him in control of a significant amount of valuable conquered territory. The best way to do that was to convince European powers that a peace in Russia’s favor would mean an immediate restoration of gas supplies to the nations dependent upon them. Without the ability to restore gas service to Europe, Putin has no leverage in peace talks:

quote:

---

American mainstream media: "Putin is a megalomaniac bent on resurrecting the Soviet Union. Oh and by the way, he's the reason for inflation." Russian mainstream media: "Putin is fighting to eradicate the Neo-Nazi's in Ukraine." Which narrative seems more plausible?

---

Here’s what’s more plausible:

The United States, it’s corrupt politicians, and the UN use Ukraine as their corrupt playground. Their ultimate goal is a world government where the elites are the masters and the civilians are the slaves.

Russia has a power hungry dictator who wants his country to be ran on his terms and his terms alone.

The UN needs Russia out of the way, so they do everything they can to goad Putin into a war that is funded in part by the United States taxpayers.

Who do we want to win? There is no good answer, but stating facts isn’t picking sides. There’s no good in any of this.

quote:

---

So which is it? was our government after the coup in 2014 a puppet government or is Zelensky?

---

I like this game where you can only make one choice lol. No way can puppets ever be switched.

quote:

---

An opinion is not a fact.

---

It’s a fact that you are brainwashed against.

quote:

---

“I thought that Poland—all the traditional Western countries that have been part of Western history—were logical members of NATO,” he says. But Ukraine, in his view, is a collection of territories once appended to Russia, which Russians see as their own, even though “some Ukrainians” do not. Stability would be better served by its acting as a buffer between Russia and the West: “I was in favor of the full independence of Ukraine, but I thought its best role was something like Finland.”

---

What an insane reading of European history.

quote:

---

Maybe the U.S. was a little too aggressive in their desire to expand NATO eastward into Ukraine, no?

---

But it was Warsaw Pact countries that drove the expansion, starting in 1991.

quote:

---

You poor thing. You believe everything they tell you. “That was a puppet, but this one definitely isn’t”. Lol.

---

So, your insinuation is that the West inserted Zelensky into an election in order to defeat a Western puppet that was already in power for ____ reasons?

quote:

---

“Don’t individual states reserve the right to enter into alliances with those they see fit, Niccolo?” Of course they do. But not all countries are islands, and most countries have neighbours. And not all neighbouring states are created equal, and they have their own national security concerns and interests. This is the case with Russia.

---

This isn't a realist perspective in international relations terms. This is, on its face, nonsensical as well, because states aren't immutable. This also falls on its face, because it elevates Russian security concerns above everyone else's. By the same logic, because of US dominance, US interests should supersede Russia, because 'not all states are created equal.'

If it weren't for Trump's first impeachment there wouldn't even be an anti-Zelensky/Ukraine slant on this board.

quote:

---

Putin invading kind of validates Ukraine's concerns.

---

Negative!

Russia only invading when Ukraine-to-NATO negotiations renewed (1) in 2014, and (2) in 2022 definitively validates Kissinger's comments.

quote:

---

I would think the US orchestrating a 2014 coup in Ukraine to remove the pro-Russian President and put in a pro-US/NATO president would come off as being aggressive.

---

It is 2022, and that government is not in power and hasn't been for three years.

quote:

---

Telling Ukraine they will say publicly that NATO is open to Ukraine membership a year ago as Russia was amassing 100,000 troops on the border. That's not provacative at all. Zelensky said that this was the plan of the US, say publicly that Ukraine could come to NATO but officially Biden Admin said they would not.

---

I totally agree. Obviously the mere thought of sovereign nations joining a defensive alliance is an act of aggression. Very clearly, Russia has justified authority over the actions of any nation where ethnic Russians happen to live.

It has nothing to do with Russia wanting historically Russian territory and resources back. Its an existential fight with NATO aggression, because Russia truly fears that Slovenia and Germany are going to march across the Ukrainian steppe into Russia at a moments notice.