While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly “neutral”, having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn’t at all to say any of this is Ukraine’s “fault”, only to point out they were not “neutral”)
Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:
"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.”
Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted."
[end quote]
Cuba is, like, right there. The prime example of what happens when countries in the western hemisphere try to enter into military alliances with non-us countries such as the soviet union
I guess its worth mentioning that Ukraine was never “neutral” to begin with. Since the fall of the union Ukraine had been in the Russian sphere of influence and they were neutral only to the extent where it wouldn’t undermine Russian control over Ukraine. That’s why the EU accession agreement started this, because it undermined Russian power and Russia was not okay with losing that power. Russia never wanted neutral buffer states, Russia wanted countries that they could control.
Literally leasing a very important port city (Sevastopol) to the Russian navy counts for nothing?
That’s so much more cooperation than talking with NATO or “aiming to get closer ties with the EU”.
Not to say that Russia had tons of trade deals with the EU, so does Morocco and everyone who wants something in that region.
If I had to guess if say Putin saw NATO expansion as a problem but rather slow and so not urgent. Whereas EU expansion could actually be a worse because of how quickly it spreads. Not least because countries seeking deeper trade ties with the EU are basically committing themselves to anti-corruption reforms and thereby slipping from his grasp long long before any serious talk of NATO is happening (see: Georgia, or my long summary elsewhere in these threads)…
Putin feared the EU because it was expanding far faster than NATO. EU expansion offered valuable trade links to former soviet countries and in turn required they implement anti-corruption legislation, and in the words of NATO secretary general Robertson above “changed every aspect of society”. That’s what Putin was afraid of.
Look at what happened to Georgia.
Old soviet regime runs economy into the ground. In 2003 pro-democracy NGOs help organise a peaceful student protests that culminates in the Rose Revolution. Autocratic government out, democratic government elected for first time, immediately start plans to align with EU to recover the economy.
2006 signs joint statement with EU on economic cooperation. Also opens pipeline cutting out Iran and Russia and delivering Azerbaijan oil directly to EU friendly Turkey.
So in 2008 Russia invades Georgia’s Tskhinvali and Abkhazia regions in an attempt to destabilise the country. Fortunately this fails.
2013 Georgia signs deeper level of EU cooperation. Ukraine parliament makes legal guarantees it’ll start to align with EU.
Putin was out of time, his Caucasus route to the middle East was closing forever, economic influence via the black sea was closing off, so he grabbed Crimea. It was the EU not NATO that surrounded him.
Yeah like with rapists, I don’t really care for their reasoning. NATO is a military alliance, EU isn’t, so even if we assume that worrying about nearby military alliances is a “justified” reason to, idk, invade your neighbouring country, it still isn’t a justification, as EU is not a military alliance.
In terms of Moscow’s loss of control, the EU was proving far more effective than NATO. Like the NATO secretary general said, the EU spread represented the start of the crisis, but the invasion was Russia’s fault. Because they’re belligerent assholes…
The EU treaties actually do have a military component much like NATO, and the “ever closer union” is actually making it a reality, with Western and Northern European militaries actually merging into blocks.
Actually the EU is a closer alliance, as NATO intervention allows for both the attacked party to not ask for aid, and the countries aiding to give as much aid as they deem necessary. The EU mutual defence clause gets triggered immediately on aggression, and requires assistance by member states with all the means in their power.
The US could technically drip-feed aid like with Ukraine, while Germany would have to send in the Bundeswehr immediately if Poland got attacked.
But EU is not specifically a military alliance, unlike NATO.
and requires assistance by member states with all the means in their power.
That clause doesn’t specify military assistance. It does mean it, but it’s not exclusive to it and leaves it up to the country to decide what is in their power.
The point is that EU is first and foremost an economical alliance, and Putin has no excuses for his crimes.
The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets.
This is how the clause starts.
It is explicitly a military alliance. That said, Ukraine is a sovereign state, and they are the sole authorities on what military alliance they want to join, Russia has no seat in the Ukrainian parliament. Of course, Putin has no excuses.
I’m just being a dick about this because it’s actually an Eurosceptic Russia-friendly narrative that the EU is nothing but a trade deal, and has no bearing on common foreign policy, common defence policy, or the creation of a common geopolitical proxy. It is. The end goal explicitly is that - while inside the EU, member states may have their own politics - from the outside of the EU, it is one country, one partner.
So when Trump or Xi or Putin come over to talk, their counterpart is representing 420 million people and an economic capacity rivalling that of the US, and member states can’t be played against each other. I know realistically we are not quite there, but Trump really hated to talk to the EU instead of individual member states. There was a reason for that.
The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014
I think the crisis technically started with a military invasion. If not that, then we could go back and forth on this to the founding of NATO and before.
That’s a very interesting take I haven’t heard of before. My understanding was that a primary reason Russia invaded Crimea was due to the oil reserves there that Russia wanted. I guess it extends beyond that.
Russia doesn’t need the Crimean oil reserves, it’s more than they wanted Ukraine to not have it. Even then, energy security wasn’t as much a motivator as was securing access to Sevastopol, a critical warm water port and the only place capable of housing the black sea fleet. Although control of that port, in turn, is largely to do with projecting energy control over a wider region.
Russia was leasing Sevastopol from Ukraine (til 2042). It had become increasingly important to Russia’s other objectives being a staging location for supporting the incursion into Georgia, and also Russia’s involvement in Syria. Both of which are key to Russia’s broader goal of region control and energy security (not Ukraine per se).
It may be that Russia was far more sensitive to EU membership than NATO because EU membership travelled much faster and was already outflanking them (see map at bottom)
In the early 2000’s, increasing ineffectiveness of the old Soviet style leadership in Georgia was bankrupting the country and making corruption rife. This was increasingly apparent to international businesses there and a student population that enjoyed (somewhat miraculously) the relatively free press in the form of TV stations critical of the regime and its corruption.
Subsequently, foreign NGO presence helped organise and contribute to the peaceful 2003 Rose Revolution which saw the older soviet influence brushed away in favour of new democratic parties. (Put your favourite conspiracy / neocon / deepstate analysis hat on, a major financier of the NGOs was George Soros)
Russia’s desire to maintain a foothold within Georgia subsequently provoked the 2008 Russia Georgian War over Georgia’s northern ‘South Ossetia’ region. Not only because Georgia is the gateway to projecting power into the Middle East, but more immediately because in 2006 Georgia opened the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline which cut Iran and Russia out of the picture and connected Azerbaijan oil fields up directly with EU friendly Turkey.
Russia failed to make anyway headway with their support of South Ossetia. Then in 2013, Georgia and the EU took the next step in closer alignment, an Association Agreement. With Russia’s efforts to expand influence into the Caucasus region curtailed and weakening in power to project strength over energy producing regions, Putin saw the need to permanently secure Sevastopol as becoming critical.
The Ukrainian parliament had begun legal alignment with the EU the same year.
Hence in 2014, Russia took Crimea.
(If you look at the map of EU plus Georgia, you can see how close EU alignment could be seen to have ‘provoked’ Russia to act. Though very much only in the sense that they are anti democratic and imperialist)
Unlikely. If oil was a question Russia would’ve probably invaded Azerbaijan instead. The things I’ve heard is that because black sea fleet is stationed there and it couldn’t have been a thing in a NATO/EU country. And Putin loves his boats, like, the whole Assad regime is basically a Putin’s little gas station.
Another is that Crimea is populated by majority of ethnic Russians who want to be in Russia. How it came to be is a bit different topic, and it was a referendum at gunpoint with falsifications, just as usual for Russia, but there is no doubt that even without those, it would’ve still passed.
Putin has modeled his rule after the Csarist monarchy of the Russian Empire. He notably despises communism and blames it for the collapse of the USSR. He calls himself “president” but many within the state Duma believe the title to be an embarrassing western descriptor and would prefer to bestow on him the title of “pravitel” or “ruler”.
But Putin ran into a bit of a problem. Just as to be called Caesar you need to rule Rome, to be called czar you need to rule over all of Rus. For him, the cultural, historical, and religious significance of Kievan Rus was just too large to be ignored.
When it existed, the Russian Empire tried to erase the other eastern Slavic languages from their shared cultural memory. They acted as if there was no Ukraine and never had been, just as with Belarus. According to the Tsarists, Ukrainians had always been Russians and had no history of their own. The Ukrainian and Belorussian languages were banned. Ukrainian nationalism was a threat to the underlying myths of Russia and threatened the czars’ attempts at creating an “All-Russian People.”
Putin is emulating their rule and presents himself as a tsar-like figure. He’s built a massive, opulent palace for himself, with gold-plated double-headed eagles, a clear Imperial Russian symbol, everywhere—even in his personal strip club. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church helps him pacify the population and supports whatever myths Kremlin wants to glorify. He wanted to go down in the history books as a grand unifier of Russian lands—if not under the same government, then definitely as the hegemon of the Russian world.
Putin wants it both ways, to take credit for the Soviet legacy and, at the same time, be viewed in the same light as the emperors and czars of old. Therefore, he’s had to bring back and reaffirm the old, imperial myths and values—and to do that, he has to get Kyiv under his thumb. After all, it was the restored Kievan Rus that became Russia, the “Third Rome.” Ukraine going its own way, claiming Kievan Rus as its legacy, moving away from Moscow, getting autocephaly for its own orthodox church—all of this runs contrary to Russian state mythology.
These imperial myths are what define Russia, what it even means to be a Russian. Without them, Russia just stops being Russia in the eyes of many. Putin is convinced that if this social glue is disrupted, then Russia will just split up in pieces again—and if he allows that to happen, then his legacy is ruined. For him, there can be no separate Ukrainian language, culture, or history.
That is where his mind is at, stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries.
While this may be correct, it is worth pointing out that NATO member states (especially those on front lines) host soldiers from other NATO states. That means Americans would be in Ukraine (as they are currently in e.g. Estonia). The EU does not have a similar military component.
It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on from the start:
“Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting any non nuclear party (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) being attacked by an aggressor (similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while “security assurance” would simply specify a promise of non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.”
It has always read “I promise pinky promise swear I won’t use military action against you but if anyone does I’m not obligated to come to your aid”.
Ukraine signed it not because they misunderstood this, but because it wasn’t their priority. They saw the nuclear weapons as a liability in themselves. They didn’t have the skill or access to maintain or control them (Moscow had always retained operational control and the launch codes) and so they just wanted rid of them. They gave them up in exchange for massive energy deals, not a defence pact.
None of this negates the initial point. Regardless of Putins feelings of insecurity, the treaty as signed. You’re right, the obbligation to adhere can be waved but the right exists nevertheless.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions? Oh Ukraine wants to join the EU zone? We’ll gosh darn it best not offend the big ol Russia. I suppose we should force all of Russia’s neighboring countries to surrender all their free will in exchange for some measure of security from the Kremlin because surely we can trust the Russians not to breach any treaties, right? Right?
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions?
You have either been on twitter too long or some other bubble if you think anything I said was “apologia for Russia’s actions”
It is their fault. Russia are belligerent assholes is what I’ve said elsewhere in this thread.
One can state facts about the historical buildup, that’s not the same thing as ascribing blame.
How else do you discuss events of history? If one misinterprets the simple examination of facts as “apologia” and “Kremlin talking points” then how do you even critically examine anything? Or do you just let your view of the world descend into cartoonish 2d generalisations?
That’s fine, and I could be mistaken, but your comments seem to select for particular facts of history and seem to omit others. You started the whole thread by repeating the talking point about Ukraine’s ascension to Europe as a threat to Putin. Cool. Was it the same case with Georgia and Tranznitztria? This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop. You know what this talking point successfully leaves out of the conversation? Ukraine’s agency and the people of Ukraine. It seems the choice is appease Putin endlessly or allow sovereign nations to direct their own destiny. I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that because Ukraine has made decisions that don’t align with whatever hell hole is left of the USSR, they now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion. It’s exhausting.
This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop…It seems the choice is appease Putin… I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that… Ukraine…now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion
I don’t mean at all to patronise you, I assume you are an intelligent person. But have you actually read the thread of posts I’ve made from the top down to here? How did you get through university making the kind of assumptions you have and be so seemingly unaware of how objective facts can be dispassionately stated? Is the habit of reserving judgement and holding things in tension unfamiliar to you? What subject did you study?
I opened my top comment on this thread saying Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault. and it is incredible how (i assume smart) people like you seem to breeze past it and then fear the worst about any comment that doesn’t say exactly what they want it to say in the exact manner they expect it, rather than taking the time to ask ‘ok, but is this unfamiliar statement actually objectively true?’
The EU expanding to Georgia is catastrophic for Putin’s plans to manipulate the middle east. as was Yanukovych stepping down, as was Ukraine planning EU alignement. you can see that right? any no point did i ever say anything of the sort that that justified the violence they then suffered. i went out of my way to state the opposite. the former general secretary of NATO said that EU progress was the “start of the crisis”. but then he also said, and I quoted him, that that does not make it Ukraine’s fault in any way. both these things can be true at the same time! at least to anyone who hasn’t succumbed to twitter-style brainrot
Yes. But you’re not adding anything new to the discourse or that we haven’t heard before. The issue is, I can’t know if you’re being intentional about it, is that sophists will take your statement about Putin feeling threatened and run with it until the night turns blue and discount everything else (especially the agency of sovereign nations). It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway. So Putin feels threatened about economic alliances on his border nations. We get it, don’t worry. Wow, how insightful.
I will point out that this precious ‘discourse’ you are referring to was in this case started by a talking goose.
It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway.
You have given away plenty of signs that you have very little experience of digesting real world theses. Maybe leave this one to those who are more well read? You don’t have to go about grumpily stomping your bad faith takes over everything that confuses and upsets you…
The EU deal agreed by Yanukovich was sabotaged by US dominated IMF. It is a categorically false narrative that peace in Ukraine requires rejection of EU trade or membership. It is fair to say it is not Russia’s preference that EU expand to CIS/USSR states. Though a clear problem with EU governance is US appointing all of its representatives based on NATOism.
While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly “neutral”, having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn’t at all to say any of this is Ukraine’s “fault”, only to point out they were not “neutral”)
In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension (source 2014 pro Russia unrest in Ukraine)
Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:
"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.”
Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted." [end quote]
Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2024/05/george-robertson-nato-why-russia-fears-european-union
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It is allowed to make treaties with other sovereign nations.
Or do you believe the US should invade Brazil because it is part of BRICS?
I feel you’ve not read my first paragraph (or last quoted sentence) closely enough…
Cuba is, like, right there. The prime example of what happens when countries in the western hemisphere try to enter into military alliances with non-us countries such as the soviet union
I guess its worth mentioning that Ukraine was never “neutral” to begin with. Since the fall of the union Ukraine had been in the Russian sphere of influence and they were neutral only to the extent where it wouldn’t undermine Russian control over Ukraine. That’s why the EU accession agreement started this, because it undermined Russian power and Russia was not okay with losing that power. Russia never wanted neutral buffer states, Russia wanted countries that they could control.
Yes good point
Literally leasing a very important port city (Sevastopol) to the Russian navy counts for nothing?
That’s so much more cooperation than talking with NATO or “aiming to get closer ties with the EU”. Not to say that Russia had tons of trade deals with the EU, so does Morocco and everyone who wants something in that region.
If I had to guess if say Putin saw NATO expansion as a problem but rather slow and so not urgent. Whereas EU expansion could actually be a worse because of how quickly it spreads. Not least because countries seeking deeper trade ties with the EU are basically committing themselves to anti-corruption reforms and thereby slipping from his grasp long long before any serious talk of NATO is happening (see: Georgia, or my long summary elsewhere in these threads)…
EU, unlike NATO, is not a military alliance.
You’re not thinking forth dimensionally, Marty!
Putin feared the EU because it was expanding far faster than NATO. EU expansion offered valuable trade links to former soviet countries and in turn required they implement anti-corruption legislation, and in the words of NATO secretary general Robertson above “changed every aspect of society”. That’s what Putin was afraid of.
Look at what happened to Georgia.
Old soviet regime runs economy into the ground. In 2003 pro-democracy NGOs help organise a peaceful student protests that culminates in the Rose Revolution. Autocratic government out, democratic government elected for first time, immediately start plans to align with EU to recover the economy.
2006 signs joint statement with EU on economic cooperation. Also opens pipeline cutting out Iran and Russia and delivering Azerbaijan oil directly to EU friendly Turkey.
So in 2008 Russia invades Georgia’s Tskhinvali and Abkhazia regions in an attempt to destabilise the country. Fortunately this fails.
2013 Georgia signs deeper level of EU cooperation. Ukraine parliament makes legal guarantees it’ll start to align with EU.
Putin was out of time, his Caucasus route to the middle East was closing forever, economic influence via the black sea was closing off, so he grabbed Crimea. It was the EU not NATO that surrounded him.
And that’s what the NATO secretary general said.
Yeah like with rapists, I don’t really care for their reasoning. NATO is a military alliance, EU isn’t, so even if we assume that worrying about nearby military alliances is a “justified” reason to, idk, invade your neighbouring country, it still isn’t a justification, as EU is not a military alliance.
In terms of Moscow’s loss of control, the EU was proving far more effective than NATO. Like the NATO secretary general said, the EU spread represented the start of the crisis, but the invasion was Russia’s fault. Because they’re belligerent assholes…
The EU treaties actually do have a military component much like NATO, and the “ever closer union” is actually making it a reality, with Western and Northern European militaries actually merging into blocks.
Actually the EU is a closer alliance, as NATO intervention allows for both the attacked party to not ask for aid, and the countries aiding to give as much aid as they deem necessary. The EU mutual defence clause gets triggered immediately on aggression, and requires assistance by member states with all the means in their power.
The US could technically drip-feed aid like with Ukraine, while Germany would have to send in the Bundeswehr immediately if Poland got attacked.
The have a mutual defence clause, yeah.
But EU is not specifically a military alliance, unlike NATO.
That clause doesn’t specify military assistance. It does mean it, but it’s not exclusive to it and leaves it up to the country to decide what is in their power.
The point is that EU is first and foremost an economical alliance, and Putin has no excuses for his crimes.
This is how the clause starts.
It is explicitly a military alliance. That said, Ukraine is a sovereign state, and they are the sole authorities on what military alliance they want to join, Russia has no seat in the Ukrainian parliament. Of course, Putin has no excuses.
I’m just being a dick about this because it’s actually an Eurosceptic Russia-friendly narrative that the EU is nothing but a trade deal, and has no bearing on common foreign policy, common defence policy, or the creation of a common geopolitical proxy. It is. The end goal explicitly is that - while inside the EU, member states may have their own politics - from the outside of the EU, it is one country, one partner.
So when Trump or Xi or Putin come over to talk, their counterpart is representing 420 million people and an economic capacity rivalling that of the US, and member states can’t be played against each other. I know realistically we are not quite there, but Trump really hated to talk to the EU instead of individual member states. There was a reason for that.
No it isn’t.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
##The European Union (EU) is a supranational political and economic union
I think the crisis technically started with a military invasion. If not that, then we could go back and forth on this to the founding of NATO and before.
Them saying that is like someone who beat their wife to death saying “it all began with her having glanced at a man who walked past.”
I think on this occasion I’ll defer to how a secretary general of NATO chooses to phrase it
That’s a very interesting take I haven’t heard of before. My understanding was that a primary reason Russia invaded Crimea was due to the oil reserves there that Russia wanted. I guess it extends beyond that.
Russia doesn’t need the Crimean oil reserves, it’s more than they wanted Ukraine to not have it. Even then, energy security wasn’t as much a motivator as was securing access to Sevastopol, a critical warm water port and the only place capable of housing the black sea fleet. Although control of that port, in turn, is largely to do with projecting energy control over a wider region.
Russia was leasing Sevastopol from Ukraine (til 2042). It had become increasingly important to Russia’s other objectives being a staging location for supporting the incursion into Georgia, and also Russia’s involvement in Syria. Both of which are key to Russia’s broader goal of region control and energy security (not Ukraine per se).
It may be that Russia was far more sensitive to EU membership than NATO because EU membership travelled much faster and was already outflanking them (see map at bottom)
In the early 2000’s, increasing ineffectiveness of the old Soviet style leadership in Georgia was bankrupting the country and making corruption rife. This was increasingly apparent to international businesses there and a student population that enjoyed (somewhat miraculously) the relatively free press in the form of TV stations critical of the regime and its corruption.
Subsequently, foreign NGO presence helped organise and contribute to the peaceful 2003 Rose Revolution which saw the older soviet influence brushed away in favour of new democratic parties. (Put your favourite conspiracy / neocon / deepstate analysis hat on, a major financier of the NGOs was George Soros)
The new leadership sought to put Georgia on better economic footing and in 2006 together with the EU issued a statement on the 5 year Georgia-European Union Action Plan within the European Neighbourhood Policy which was a major snub to Russia.
Russia’s desire to maintain a foothold within Georgia subsequently provoked the 2008 Russia Georgian War over Georgia’s northern ‘South Ossetia’ region. Not only because Georgia is the gateway to projecting power into the Middle East, but more immediately because in 2006 Georgia opened the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline which cut Iran and Russia out of the picture and connected Azerbaijan oil fields up directly with EU friendly Turkey.
Russia failed to make anyway headway with their support of South Ossetia. Then in 2013, Georgia and the EU took the next step in closer alignment, an Association Agreement. With Russia’s efforts to expand influence into the Caucasus region curtailed and weakening in power to project strength over energy producing regions, Putin saw the need to permanently secure Sevastopol as becoming critical.
The Ukrainian parliament had begun legal alignment with the EU the same year.
Hence in 2014, Russia took Crimea.
(If you look at the map of EU plus Georgia, you can see how close EU alignment could be seen to have ‘provoked’ Russia to act. Though very much only in the sense that they are anti democratic and imperialist)
Unlikely. If oil was a question Russia would’ve probably invaded Azerbaijan instead. The things I’ve heard is that because black sea fleet is stationed there and it couldn’t have been a thing in a NATO/EU country. And Putin loves his boats, like, the whole Assad regime is basically a Putin’s little gas station.
Another is that Crimea is populated by majority of ethnic Russians who want to be in Russia. How it came to be is a bit different topic, and it was a referendum at gunpoint with falsifications, just as usual for Russia, but there is no doubt that even without those, it would’ve still passed.
Putin has modeled his rule after the Csarist monarchy of the Russian Empire. He notably despises communism and blames it for the collapse of the USSR. He calls himself “president” but many within the state Duma believe the title to be an embarrassing western descriptor and would prefer to bestow on him the title of “pravitel” or “ruler”.
But Putin ran into a bit of a problem. Just as to be called Caesar you need to rule Rome, to be called czar you need to rule over all of Rus. For him, the cultural, historical, and religious significance of Kievan Rus was just too large to be ignored.
When it existed, the Russian Empire tried to erase the other eastern Slavic languages from their shared cultural memory. They acted as if there was no Ukraine and never had been, just as with Belarus. According to the Tsarists, Ukrainians had always been Russians and had no history of their own. The Ukrainian and Belorussian languages were banned. Ukrainian nationalism was a threat to the underlying myths of Russia and threatened the czars’ attempts at creating an “All-Russian People.”
Putin is emulating their rule and presents himself as a tsar-like figure. He’s built a massive, opulent palace for himself, with gold-plated double-headed eagles, a clear Imperial Russian symbol, everywhere—even in his personal strip club. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church helps him pacify the population and supports whatever myths Kremlin wants to glorify. He wanted to go down in the history books as a grand unifier of Russian lands—if not under the same government, then definitely as the hegemon of the Russian world.
Putin wants it both ways, to take credit for the Soviet legacy and, at the same time, be viewed in the same light as the emperors and czars of old. Therefore, he’s had to bring back and reaffirm the old, imperial myths and values—and to do that, he has to get Kyiv under his thumb. After all, it was the restored Kievan Rus that became Russia, the “Third Rome.” Ukraine going its own way, claiming Kievan Rus as its legacy, moving away from Moscow, getting autocephaly for its own orthodox church—all of this runs contrary to Russian state mythology.
These imperial myths are what define Russia, what it even means to be a Russian. Without them, Russia just stops being Russia in the eyes of many. Putin is convinced that if this social glue is disrupted, then Russia will just split up in pieces again—and if he allows that to happen, then his legacy is ruined. For him, there can be no separate Ukrainian language, culture, or history.
That is where his mind is at, stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Valuable insight thanks
My pleasure.
TIL that Tzar derives from the roman Ceasar!
While this may be correct, it is worth pointing out that NATO member states (especially those on front lines) host soldiers from other NATO states. That means Americans would be in Ukraine (as they are currently in e.g. Estonia). The EU does not have a similar military component.
And Budapest memorandum means… Nothing?
It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on from the start:
“Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting any non nuclear party (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) being attacked by an aggressor (similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while “security assurance” would simply specify a promise of non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
It has always read “I promise pinky promise swear I won’t use military action against you but if anyone does I’m not obligated to come to your aid”.
Ukraine signed it not because they misunderstood this, but because it wasn’t their priority. They saw the nuclear weapons as a liability in themselves. They didn’t have the skill or access to maintain or control them (Moscow had always retained operational control and the launch codes) and so they just wanted rid of them. They gave them up in exchange for massive energy deals, not a defence pact.
None of this negates the initial point. Regardless of Putins feelings of insecurity, the treaty as signed. You’re right, the obbligation to adhere can be waved but the right exists nevertheless.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. I don’t understand the need for this incessant apologia for Russia’s actions? Oh Ukraine wants to join the EU zone? We’ll gosh darn it best not offend the big ol Russia. I suppose we should force all of Russia’s neighboring countries to surrender all their free will in exchange for some measure of security from the Kremlin because surely we can trust the Russians not to breach any treaties, right? Right?
This is straight up Kremlin talking points.
You have either been on twitter too long or some other bubble if you think anything I said was “apologia for Russia’s actions”
It is their fault. Russia are belligerent assholes is what I’ve said elsewhere in this thread.
One can state facts about the historical buildup, that’s not the same thing as ascribing blame.
How else do you discuss events of history? If one misinterprets the simple examination of facts as “apologia” and “Kremlin talking points” then how do you even critically examine anything? Or do you just let your view of the world descend into cartoonish 2d generalisations?
That’s fine, and I could be mistaken, but your comments seem to select for particular facts of history and seem to omit others. You started the whole thread by repeating the talking point about Ukraine’s ascension to Europe as a threat to Putin. Cool. Was it the same case with Georgia and Tranznitztria? This is a Kremlin talking point that gets thrown around non-stop. You know what this talking point successfully leaves out of the conversation? Ukraine’s agency and the people of Ukraine. It seems the choice is appease Putin endlessly or allow sovereign nations to direct their own destiny. I cannot stress how much of social media is perpetuating this talking point that because Ukraine has made decisions that don’t align with whatever hell hole is left of the USSR, they now deserve to be the victims of a military invasion. It’s exhausting.
It is a threat to Putin!
Yes! I went into Georgia at length here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13494524
I don’t mean at all to patronise you, I assume you are an intelligent person. But have you actually read the thread of posts I’ve made from the top down to here? How did you get through university making the kind of assumptions you have and be so seemingly unaware of how objective facts can be dispassionately stated? Is the habit of reserving judgement and holding things in tension unfamiliar to you? What subject did you study?
I opened my top comment on this thread saying Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault. and it is incredible how (i assume smart) people like you seem to breeze past it and then fear the worst about any comment that doesn’t say exactly what they want it to say in the exact manner they expect it, rather than taking the time to ask ‘ok, but is this unfamiliar statement actually objectively true?’
The EU expanding to Georgia is catastrophic for Putin’s plans to manipulate the middle east. as was Yanukovych stepping down, as was Ukraine planning EU alignement. you can see that right? any no point did i ever say anything of the sort that that justified the violence they then suffered. i went out of my way to state the opposite. the former general secretary of NATO said that EU progress was the “start of the crisis”. but then he also said, and I quoted him, that that does not make it Ukraine’s fault in any way. both these things can be true at the same time! at least to anyone who hasn’t succumbed to twitter-style brainrot
Yes. But you’re not adding anything new to the discourse or that we haven’t heard before. The issue is, I can’t know if you’re being intentional about it, is that sophists will take your statement about Putin feeling threatened and run with it until the night turns blue and discount everything else (especially the agency of sovereign nations). It seems to be the sole focus of your thesis here anyway. So Putin feels threatened about economic alliances on his border nations. We get it, don’t worry. Wow, how insightful.
I will point out that this precious ‘discourse’ you are referring to was in this case started by a talking goose.
You have given away plenty of signs that you have very little experience of digesting real world theses. Maybe leave this one to those who are more well read? You don’t have to go about grumpily stomping your bad faith takes over everything that confuses and upsets you…
The EU deal agreed by Yanukovich was sabotaged by US dominated IMF. It is a categorically false narrative that peace in Ukraine requires rejection of EU trade or membership. It is fair to say it is not Russia’s preference that EU expand to CIS/USSR states. Though a clear problem with EU governance is US appointing all of its representatives based on NATOism.
Do you have a link to further reading on how it was sabotaged?
That commenter is a full-on revisionist tankie. Yanukovich was a Russian puppet who sabotaged the EU deals which sparked the Euromaidan protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_the_International_Monetary_Fund