seems to be a popular blame America first talking point going around.

It's a fair question, but I don't think there is a solid answer. Only opinions.

Impossible to say. But my feeling is that that hasn't created the issue but merely accelerated Putin into plans he's had for a long time. He's been actively weaponizing and looking for excuses to take back former Soviet territory. Especially Ukraine

It wouldn't have mattered. Putin was going to invade Ukraine at some point no matter what.

Making Ukraine a member of NATO and putting NATO troops in Ukraine a year ago probably would have prevented this because I doubt Putin was prepared to start WW3. However, it also could have ignited WW3…although if Putin is determined to expand beyond Ukraine I don't know how a full war in Europe can be avoided.

Putin always had his eye on the Ukraine. It was only a matter of time and opportunity. See Chechnya and Crimea.

China is more to blame for likely giving Russia more trade assurances to offset sanctions.

America is to blame for not putting troops in Ukraine and telling Putin to **** around and find out.

If you read Putin's address to the nation, I'm not sure the invasion would have been avoided regardless of what the US says or does, did, etc.

His thinking is shaped by history, contempt for the west (US) and what seems to be his drive for the borders and power of the former Soviet Union (with an autocratic capitalist government of course).

I don't think its a fair question at all. How would it be America's fault that another country invades someone?

America should not be in the business of telling tyrants we won't be allied with someone if its in our national interest.


and Putin wanted much more than just that assurance. theres really no truth to the notion if we had just told Putin that ukraine wouldnt' be in nato. its a fiction.

similar to the "if we weren't supporting Israel, 9/11 wouldn't have happened"

He didn't want NATO on his border, so he takes over Ukraine and puts NATO on his border.

The US/NATOs approach did not do ANYTHING to tone down/reduce the Russians arguably legitimate concerns.

That said, it doesn't justify the invasion of a sovereign nation.

Putin actually effectively implied the necessary conditions would be to undo all new NATO membership going back to something like 1997, which would require revoking membership of several former Pact nations. That simply is not going to happen, so it was not intended to be a serious demand or negotiation term.

does US now need to give assurances that Finland won't join NATO? our fault if Putin goes there next?

Quote:

---

Russia has warned of "serious military and political repercussions" if Finland joins NATO amid the Ukraine crisis.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said the country's accession to NATO, the military alliance currently made up of 28 European countries plus the US and Canada, could "have detrimental consequences".

---

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-military-repurcussions-finland-nato-163803214.html

I think everyone is forgetting that there are conditions and milestones in order to meet qualifications for NATO.

I have no idea if Ukraine met those or not, but it isn't a condition-free application process. Ukraine had substantial corruptness throughout the country, so I suspect they didn't actually meet qualifications.

Russia has zero legitimate concerns about expanded NATO membership. The Soviets (read Russia) subjugated and oppressed eastern European nations during the Cold War. The moment those nations had an opportunity to become part of a defensive alliance designed to prevent that type of aggression they took it. Does anyone seriously blame them for taking that opportunity?

Today we see exactly why any nation that surrounds Russia should be terrified and would be wise to seek an alliance of other states to protect their sovereignty. Russia can take their "legitimate concerns" and shove them up their ....

Screw Finland, not worth WWIII to defend them. To that end, most of the countries added after 1999 are not worth defending.

Even if not NATO members, Finland, Sweden and Poland can make a defense pact between them or does NATO not allow members to enter such agreements with non members because of Article 5?

ETA: Poland is a NATO member.

BMX Bandit said:

---

does US now need to give assurances that Finland won't join NATO? our fault if Putin goes there next?

Quote:

---

Russia has warned of "serious military and political repercussions" if Finland joins NATO amid the Ukraine crisis.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said the country's accession to NATO, the military alliance currently made up of 28 European countries plus the US and Canada, could "have detrimental consequences".

---

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-military-repurcussions-finland-nato-163803214.html

---

Russia won't be invading Finland though. Don't have the resources to do it and even if they did Finland would vigorously defend itself.

Also, Finland is in the EU and has close ties to NATO even though they aren't formal members. Found this:

Quote:

---

in 2014 signed a NATO memorandum of understanding,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#cite_note-141][140][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#cite_note-eduskunta.fi-142][141][/url] thus forming a practical coalition.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#cite_note-nato.int-20][19][/url]

---

Quote:

---

Russia won't be invading Finland though.

---

I don't think they will either.

but does USA need to tell Russia Finland won't be joining so that Russia won't feel compelled to invade?
(I know your answer is "no")

You are one of my favorite posters here and fair-minded.

If you are seriously interested in learning more about this perspective then I'd recommend John J. Mearsheimer's (R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) talk below from 2015:



It's an hour long but you can probably get the gist in the first 15-20 minutes.

If you don't want to watch I completely understand, people are busy and "ain't no one got time for that!" But I figured I'd post it in case you do.

BMX Bandit said:

---

seems to be a popular blame America first talking point going around.

---

Just curious. What authority does the US have to make that promise?

Martin Cash said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

seems to be a popular blame America first talking point going around.

---

Just curious. What authority does the US have to make that promise?

---

I do not think that the US has that authority.

"NATO provides feedback as well as technical advice to each country and evaluates its progress on an individual basis. Once members agree that a country meets the requirements, NATO can issue that country an invitation to begin accession talks."

My opinion...it's inconsequential.

Putin has still taken a measured risk by invading. It's why he's inched forward one step at a time, in plain site. The world has seen it coming, but we also saw very little counter movement.

Let's say Ukraine was admitted to NATO. What would have been different? Russia is still the same threat regardless, and they still coveted the same territory. Would that alliance have prevented them from invading?

I dont think it would have mattered one iota, other than giving Russia an excuse/cover to invade earlier.

Martin Cash said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

seems to be a popular blame America first talking point going around.

---

Just curious. What authority does the US have to make that promise?

---

believe it takes unanimous agreement to join NATO

If you are more of a book guy then this is a good read:
https://www.amazon.com/Not-One-Inch-Post-Cold-Stalemate/dp/030025993X

"Based on over a hundred interviews and on secret records of White HouseKremlin contacts, Not One Inch shows how the United States successfully overcame Russian resistance in the 1990s to expand NATO to more than 900 million people. But it also reveals how Washington's hardball tactics transformed the era between the Cold War and the present day, undermining what could have become a lasting partnership.
...
Pulling back the curtain on U.S.Russian relations in the critical years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Putin's rise to power, prize-winning Cold War historian M. E. Sarotte reveals the bitter clashes over NATO behind the facade of friendship and comes to a sobering conclusion: the damage did not have to happen. In this deeply researched and compellingly written book, Sarotte shows what went wrong."

BMX Bandit said:

---

seems to be a popular blame America first talking point going around.

---

No

Putin owns invading another country. That's all.

> Is America to blame for not promising Putin that Ukraine would not be in NATO?

Or is Putin to blame for going to war over our refusal to make that promise?

If you understand Russia's real motivation for invading Ukraine, you'll understand that the only thing that would have prevented this was Ukraine holding on to their nuclear stockpile in the 90s.

Russia (before the invasion) had 2 major problems. First, their western border is 3500 miles of wide open plains that are completely indefensible by their current military. Second, their population is collapsing due to drugs, alcohol, and low birthrates. This means they will, in the next decade or two, be the most inviting target ever for invasion if anyone should happen to develop adequate defenses against Russian nukes. They are absolutely paranoid about this, and are convinced their only way to survive is to expand west into more defensible mountains and bodies of water.

They were always going to invade Ukraine, and assuming they don't get completely gutted by the occupation there, they're going after the Balkans, Moldova, and eastern Poland next.

Disagree on that one. Attack on a NATO
Country is significantly more provocative. This is provocative but not as much.

The sad thing is that if we hadn’t expanded NATO, Putin would have tirelessly devoted himself to world peace and the brotherhood of man.

— Phil Klay (@PhilKlay) February 25, 2022

To be clear, invading another country based on completely fabricated pretexts just to kill and replace their leadership is unacceptable in the 21st century.

Any nation that does that deserved to isolated and sanctioned.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think its a fair question at all. How would it be America's fault that another country invades someone?

America should not be in the business of telling tyrants we won't be allied with someone if its in our national interest.


and Putin wanted much more than just that assurance. theres really no truth to the notion if we had just told Putin that ukraine wouldnt' be in nato. its a fiction.

similar to the "if we weren't supporting Israel, 9/11 wouldn't have happened"

---

And the irony is that Putin said he didn't want a NATO country right up on his border…but now he's pushing his border closer to NATO countries. Moldova is next

Gif of continued expansion of NATO to present.

Did the US instigate this?

Seems like it. ;

It's not America's decision or choice to make. They are only one member state.

NATO is the US and UK. It actually has armies so its the big baddy facing Russia for talking points, but the USA and UK dont want or need to fight Russia.

The rest of the key NATO membership is the EU. And yes, except for one notable exception the EU is also expanding, including starting the whole fire in 2014 when the Ukranian populace chose Europe over Russia.

The enemy for an expansionist Russia is a united Europe. I guess thats personified by NATO when you're talking about military alliances right now, but in the long term, Putin's enemy is the EU.